Andrew Love: Is not the real problem that the unified business rate has been held to the rate of inflation over the past eight or nine years? Does the Minister not agree that the business community needs to make a greater contribution to the provision of local services, and that it is time that it did so?

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. While I accept that the right to buy has been very important to a lot of people—not least to some in my constituency—does he not agree that local authorities need to provide social housing as well as making houses available through the right to buy? Is it not time that we looked at the rules governing social housing, and helped those councils who want to supply good housing for people who cannot afford to buy?

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend mentioned the independent commission of inquiry into council housing in Birmingham, chaired by Professor Anne Power. Is she aware of the commission's latest report, which emphasises not only that, if Birmingham is to tackle its housing agenda, it needs to develop a much more vibrant, community-based housing approach, but that, crucially, since the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives took over the council, the neighbourhood agenda is now slipping
	"a long way down the Council's list of priorities and there are many unresolved funding and staffing problems over devolution, regeneration, neighbourhood renewal, neighbourhood wardens and other local initiatives"?
	Does she not agree that, if Birmingham is to tackle its housing agenda, the council must learn to let go?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I may assure the hon. Gentleman that in the first instance lessons from Osiris 2 have been learned on procuring new equipment, amending procedures and introducing new techniques. A number of major exercises have taken place subsequently, not just in London, but in Newcastle and Birmingham, and we had Operation Atlantic Blue in conjunction with the US and Canada in January this year. Three major counter-terrorism exercises are held in the UK every year, as well as smaller regional exercises and table-top exercises. There is an ongoing examination of our contingency planning and preparedness. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman received a briefing earlier this week. We will be happy to give him more in the future to ensure that he is kept up to speed.

Paul Rowen: Does not the Minister accept that the failure to increase the grant from the current level of £25,000 to the £50,000 recommended in the report is causing real hardship and means that many people who need disabled facilities cannot access them?

David Cameron: The Prime Minister tries to fudge the issue of whether Sir Nigel was sacked, but last night Sir Nigel said that he had wanted to stay for at least another year, and that he wanted to leave when things were "on the up"—something that I am sure that the Prime Minister feels some sympathy with. He also said that the NHS's structural problems were getting worse, that managers were under less pressure to get the finances right, and that financial problems were now being revealed. What responsibility do Ministers take for such matters?

David Cameron: In public, the Prime Minister gives us these lists of success; in private, he knows that things are going wrong and is sacking the chief executive. Is this not just the latest example of mismanagement in the NHS? The Government set up primary care trusts; now they are scrapping half of them. They introduced strategic health authorities; now most of them are going. They have poured money into the NHS, but there is an £800 million deficit and the outgoing chief executive said that things are getting worse, not better. When will Ministers take responsibility for their failures, instead of seeking to blame others?

David Evennett: Will the Prime Minister empathise and sympathise with my constituents, who are constantly battling against applications to site mobile phone masts in their streets, outside their houses and outside schools? If he is sympathetic, why did his Government kill the Bill on Friday last, which would have helped deal with the matter?

Harry Cohen: There were another 18 grisly murders on a minibus this morning. Has the Prime Minister taken into account the comments of John Pace, until recently the UN's head of human rights for Iraq, that most of the killings in Baghdad are carried out by agents of the Ministry of the Interior, and that that Ministry is a rogue element in the Government? General Casey, who is effectively running Iraq, says complacently and perhaps deliberately that this is just a long-term problem. Surely British troops were not sent to fight and die for such death squads' perversion of democracy?

Tony Blair: They certainly should do. The G6 talks are happening, but we are also honoured and delighted to have in this country for a state visit President Lula of Brazil. Brazil obviously occupies a very important position in the world trade talks, as part of the G20 group of nations. The main area of discussion that I will have with President Lula tomorrow will be whether it is possible to put together a far more ambitious plan for the trade talks. That should obviously include, since it is supposed to be a development round, a specific package for Africa and the very poorest countries, but it would be far easier if that package were located in a general ambitious trade round that took down trade barriers right around the world. That would obviously be of advantage to the poorest African countries, but in addition, it would be of advantage to countries such as Brazil and Britain.

Tony Blair: As I know that my hon. Friend would accept, the provision of education in Sunderland has benefited enormously from what the Government have done over the past few years. The sixth form college has been a success, too. I very much hope that the proposals in the schools White Paper and the Education and Inspections Bill, far from undermining that success, will assist that process. After all, we have made great progress in our schools in the past eight or nine years. It is important that we build on that, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is not a matter on which the Chair can adjudicate. However, the hon. Lady has had an opportunity, in effect, to put the matter directly to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that between them, the matter can be sorted out satisfactorily as soon as possible.

Anne Main: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require any medical practitioner who diagnoses a terminal illness in a patient to inform the Secretary of State; to require the Secretary of State to give the patient information about his entitlement to, and a claim form for, attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and for connected purposes.
	I should like to outline my personal experience, which has urged me to try to introduce the Bill. My husband Steve died of cancer 14 years ago. At the time we were a family with three small children and, having had nothing to do with the benefits system, I was unaware that there were benefits to which we were entitled, which would have helped us at a difficult time.
	Anyone who has been through the earth-shattering diagnosis of terminal illness will say that money is the last thing on their mind. However, it helps enormously with all the bills that accrue when nursing somebody who is terminally ill. Many people choose to die at home. It is an enormous help to know that some support is available with, for example, cleaning, personal care and extra food that is especially palatable for someone who feels ill.
	Over the years I have met many people who, like me, were unaware of the benefits to which they were entitled. There does not appear to be one particular person or delivery system to take responsibility for ensuring that patients and their families know that there are benefits that they are entitled to claim speedily. Consequently, I tabled an amendment to the Health Bill, which we considered recently, and I am promoting the Bill that we are considering now.
	Coincidentally, days after I had done that, the Public Accounts Committee report entitled "Tackling Cancer: Improving the patient journey" was published, and I shall give the House a brief summary of its findings.
	The report found that terminally ill cancer patients were often not made aware of the non-means-tested disability benefits that they could have claimed to alleviate financial hardship. That was estimated by Macmillan Cancer Relief to involve more than £100 million over a six-month period. The report also highlighted the fact that three quarters of patients were given no information on financial benefits by the NHS or anyone else. However, research published in the report showed that nearly half those people would have welcomed such advice.
	Research carried out by Macmillan Cancer Relief in 2004 estimated that in 2001, terminally ill patients with six months or less to live failed to claim benefits worth £106 million over a six-month period. A cynic might ask whether the Government do not want people to claim those benefits, but I do not believe that that is the case, because they have put in place measures to ensure speedy delivery, which is welcome. What we do not have in place, however, is a system for the delivery of information. Hon. Members across the House are worried that no one has been given responsibility for this, either now or historically. The problem has existed for a long time.
	The figures show that many people are missing out, yet the benefits are easy to claim if people know that they are there. We have a speedy delivery system in place. I met the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) this week to discuss the matter, and I am grateful to her for giving me her time. Everyone says that we should be able to achieve this; it is just a question of knowing how to.
	Unfortunately, the report shows that in the 14 years since my husband died, nothing much has changed to ensure that information is given quickly and sensitively to patients. A tripartite group, comprising representatives of the Department for Work and Pensions, Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Department of Health, is looking at the issue. This is a sensitive topic involving health and benefits, and I want a firm assurance that the information will at least be given to patients, whether they choose to use it or not. At present, many people are denied that choice through ignorance. We must not allow our sensitivity to such issues to result in people not dying well. A compassionate society would make this a burning priority.
	The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who served on the Committee, observed that he believed the Department for Work and Pensions should be leading on this matter. The hon. Gentleman also made the very point that I am making today when he said that
	"there should in effect be a package for the patient and boxes which should be ticked to show that they have now received the benefits advice".
	Sir Nigel Crisp, who until yesterday was the chief executive at the Department of Health, accepted in his evidence that the system was "not good enough". That is something of an understatement, given that year after year, people are dying in reduced circumstances, when that need not happen. Sir Nigel also acknowledged that
	"not enough people who were entitled to benefit actually knew about it or were helped to find it. We do not have strong enough systems in place to do it."
	The national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards of St. Thomas' hospital, also gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, and he agreed that this was a big problem. So we all agree that the problem exists; it has been firmly identified. Professor Richards said in his evidence that he expected the paperwork to be rolled out by November 2005, and that the tripartite group would have agreed a way forward by the end of 2005. However, that has not happened. That date has come and gone, and no system is in place. We have had more talk, more water has passed under the bridge, and more people have died.
	I spoke with the Minister earlier this week, and I really welcomed our conversation. I was given assurances that she shared my desire to ensure that patients and their families were informed of the available benefits. Unfortunately, however, while discussions are ongoing with the tripartite group, the Government do not appear to be in a position to say that a clear line of responsibility for ensuring delivery of information has been established. I keep being giving plenty of reasons why things cannot be done, but on behalf of terminally ill patients, I am now demanding that someone starts to give us some solutions.
	Talk will not pay the bills. Talk will not pay for food that people find palatable while undergoing chemotherapy. Talk will not pay for someone to sit with a patient while his wife goes to collect their young family from school. My Bill proposes that a GP or other medical practitioner should ensure that the system is at least triggered. After all, those are the health professionals most closely connected with the patient and their family. They are the professionals needed to sign the DS1500 form that will trigger the speedy delivery of the benefit. Doctors are paid by the DWP for each form filled in, but the patient or their representative has to require the doctor to issue and fill in the form. How can they do that if they are unaware of the benefit? This is a miserable and frustrating cycle of ignorance and deprivation.
	I propose that the GP or other medical practitioner, after fully discussing the patient's illness with them or their representative, should be obliged to trigger a request for an information pack to be sent to the patient or their representative. The forms should be simple and sensitively worded so that the patient or their representative can decide whether to choose to use the system instead of languishing in ignorance. Let us not allow our sensitivity to a patient's plight to give us an excuse for inaction.
	New GP contracts were introduced in April 2004. That might have been an ideal time to have considered this additional small responsibility. After all, GPs are paid to sign the forms, and this is just an extension of the same service. We can trigger the delivery of a TV licence form to people's homes, so it should not be beyond the wit of man to trigger the delivery of a pack of information on benefits to those who are terminally ill. As it is often the GP or medical practitioner who is most closely involved, this is a simple and obvious solution.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Main, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Frank Field, Mike Penning, Andrew Selous and Grant Shapps.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House, or at least some Members of it, will no doubt recall that a Road Safety Bill was last presented to the House in November 2004, but unfortunately, it fell before the general election. Although this Bill essentially brings back the same measures, it has been improved in two significant ways. First, there are new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. On Second Reading of the previous Bill, there was a lot of debate on those matters. Secondly, the Bill contains a new offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle and a power to immobilise vehicles that do not meet insurance requirements. The power will be used to stop the owners of cars and lorries driving them when it is clear that they are not properly insured. I shall return to those measures later.
	I should also point out that two measures in the previous Bill have now been enacted elsewhere. First, drink drive information may now be taken at the roadside, which avoids the need for the police to go back to the police station when they stop someone, and secondly, in order to bear down further on uninsured drivers, the police have been given new powers to use automatic number plate recognition cameras linked to the databases of insurance companies to spot uninsured vehicles. Across the country, police forces are now using ANPR cameras to stop cars, and they can tell whether they are licensed and insured. In the autumn I saw that being done in Birmingham, and it is highly effective. It was surprising how many people were caught in the hour or so that I saw the system being used. It is an important way of tackling uninsured drivers and will increase the likelihood of people who are driving on the road without being properly insured being caught.

Alistair Darling: I am aware of that problem, which was raised with me on a recent visit to Nuneaton; it is a problem in Greater Manchester, too. I have looked into it and, as ever with such things, the situation is complex, although more can be done to deal with it. Because mini motor cycles do not comply with construction and use regulations, they cannot be registered as road vehicles such as motor bikes, and thus are not allowed on the roads. As a result, the police have power under existing law to deal with anyone who drives a moto on the road or pavement, or in a public place. Motos are supposed to be used only on private land with the owner's permission. However, I am aware that police forces in different parts of the country take different views of what they can or cannot do, in terms of warnings and so on. We need to look into the matter.
	There is no doubt that those machines, some of which can go at 30 or 40 mph if not more, ridden by people who should not be driving anything on the road, let alone a moto, have the potential to cause immense damage, if not death. It is important that we are absolutely clear about the law. As I understand it, the law says that those vehicles are not allowed on the highway, which includes the pavements, so if a police officer finds someone driving one there, they have the power both to arrest the individual and to remove the machine. If the law lacks clarity or if there is any impediment, we should look into that before something serious happens. My hon. Friend has my assurance that we will look into the problem. It may be possible to do something during the passage of the Bill, but this may simply be a matter of making it clear to the police that there are already powers and that they should use them. If that is not the case, I should like to know what the problem is. There is no doubt that those machines are a source of irritation., and anyone buying one and putting a child on it is grossly irresponsible.
	I want to put the Bill into context before I come to particular proposals. Some people will say that we can do more, which is undoubtedly true, but it is worth bearing it in mind that despite everything that we have done, today—as every day—nearly nine people in this country will be killed on our roads. None the less, along with the Netherlands and Sweden, we have one of the best safety records in the world.
	Nearly six years ago, in March 2000, we set out plans to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children. The latest figures, for 2004, showed that the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 28 per cent.—about 13,000 fewer casualties each year than in the mid-1990s, which is significant and more than halfway towards our target.
	The number of children killed or seriously injured has been cut by 43 per cent., which is three quarters of the way towards our target of a 50 per cent. reduction, but as the House is aware, too many children are being killed. Furthermore, there are large regional variations, which are of special concern.

Alistair Darling: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that point at the stage when I planned to deal with it. I would be the last to claim that my speech has a shape to it, but such shape as there is will probably disappear if I deal with points in a different order.
	The Bill has four key themes. The first is the need to deal with bad or irresponsible driving, whether it consists of speeding, drink-driving or carelessness. The second is the need to deal with motorists who break the law by driving without insurance, or using vehicles that are not roadworthy. Thirdly, we want to make it more difficult for foreign drivers to escape penalties for a specific range of driving offences in this country. Fourthly, we have proposed measures to raise standards and improve awareness. Let me say now, for the benefit of Members who may seek to intervene, that I will deal with those themes in that order.
	Research shows that all drivers consider themselves to be better than average. I do not know whether that applies to everyone who is present today, but apparently it is the case. Nevertheless, poor driving is a key factor in many accidents. For example, nearly a third of car occupants who die have been involved in single vehicle accidents—accidents involving no other vehicle. Unfortunately, statistics suggest that the number of such accidents is increasing. It therefore seems sensible to bear down on some of the possible causes. One moment of carelessness or lack of attention can lead to serious consequences.
	Clauses 20 and 21 introduce new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
	Much of our Second Reading debate on the earlier Bill, which my hon. Friend missed out on, concerned precisely those issues. Until now, while it was possible to convict someone for causing death by dangerous driving, if the driving was merely careless, it was not possible to convict. It is also important for us to be able to deal with drivers who are not insured, have not paid their tax or are disqualified. Until now a high level of proof has been required for conviction, and the clauses will make a substantial difference in that regard.

Adam Price: Taking a life is taking a life, but in this context, we are surely talking in some cases about momentary misjudgments when there was no deliberate intent on the part of the individual to take a life. Surely that should be reflected in the Secretary of State's comments.

Alistair Darling: As I explained earlier, the position would not change as regards someone who was driving along and was insured. The question would be whether they were driving carelessly or dangerously. Under the Bill, if someone were driving carelessly because they were not paying proper attention or doing something that reduced their attention to the road, they could be charged with causing death by careless driving. On the other hand, they could be blameless. If the person driving along was not insured and there was a fatality, then, depending on the circumstances, under the additional measure to which I referred, it might be possible to charge that person with an offence.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that much depends on the circumstances of each case. We are plugging a gap because, until this Bill, hopefully, becomes law, it is not possible to charge a person with causing death by careless driving. Nor is it possible in every circumstance to get at someone who should not be on the road in the first place and whose car is involved in an accident involving a fatality. All those issues will no doubt be explored further in Committee.
	I have mentioned uninsured driving. Continuous registration has helped. The additional powers to which I referred earlier have helped in tracking people down and dealing with them where they have broken the law. Equally, electronic registration in the renewal of tax discs, which we introduced just last year, is helping to catch people who try to skip a month on their insurance, for example. However, the Bill also introduces a new offence of being the keeper of a vehicle, the use of which is not insured. Unless people have registered a statutory declaration and the thing is off the road, there will be an offence of keeping the car where it is not insured.
	The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving. The fine doubles to £5,000. As I said, clause 30 defines careless and inconsiderate driving for the first time. There is already a statutory definition of dangerous driving. For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, a mandatory endorsement is introduced. For repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there is mandatory disqualification if the offence is repeated within three years. That is a minimum of six months' disqualification.
	Excessive speed contributes to just over a third of fatalities—that means about 1,000 deaths every year—as well as being a factor in another 40,000 injuries. Several police forces now offer "low-end speeders" the option of going on speed awareness courses, and that will be in the Bill as a disposal available to the courts. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses, which, of course, we welcome.
	The greatest reduction in such casualties would come from reducing speed across the board, and that is where speed cameras come in. I believe that, on any view one cares to take, speed cameras are saving lives and reducing speed. However, as I said in 2004—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) raised the point—we need to do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. A graduated system of penalties from two to six points, rather than the present system, would ensure that a distinction was made between someone who was just over the limit and someone who was driving way over the limit.
	I said last time—the Bill provides for this—that the Government would undertake consultation. Under the Bill, we have to consult, and people will be able to respond. I think I am right in saying that, in the consultation on the principle of the measure in 2004–05, just over half of respondents said they were in favour of graduated penalties. Obviously, when we consult fully, we will see what people have to say. After that consultation, there will be proposals. A measure will come before the House, and it will be subject to the usual affirmative procedure.

Alistair Darling: No. I think that I gave the example of someone driving at 66 mph in a 40 mph zone, and if I did not, I apologise. As it happens, 66 mph, according to guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers, is on the cusp in terms of being sent to court, so such a person might or might not be sent to court. I used that example because the point is that someone who does 66 mph in a 40 mph zone could get the same number of points and the same fine as someone who does 36 mph; I ask the House to reflect on that.
	I will of course take further interventions, but I want first to make further progress. As I said earlier, courts will have recourse to re-training courses, and we will raise the penalty for failing to identify a driver to six penalty points. We will also clarify the law on speeding exemptions and the associated training requirements. People who are transporting organs for transplant by car, for example, are sometimes stopped by the police, and the law in that area needs to be clarified.
	On any view, there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths and injuries at safety camera sites. Devices that detect or jam such equipment need to be dealt with, and the Bill does that.
	There has been a change in Britain's culture in terms of drink-driving. Generally speaking, the figures have come down since the 1970s, but alcohol is still a factor in about one in seven of all fatal crashes, accounting for some 500 deaths a year. What is worse, 20 per cent. of such offenders are repeat offenders. The statistics also show that younger, predominantly male drivers are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol. So we are giving the courts the power to make repeat drink-driving offenders re-take their driving test. That will require secondary legislation, but the principle needs to be dealt with in the Bill. That way, repeat offenders will be kept off the roads until they have completed the necessary medical examination. We will also enable the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging re-offending. I hope that all these measures, backed up by others such as advertising, will get across the message that drinking and driving kills.

Alistair Darling: I agree that driving under the influence of anything that impairs judgment—drugs are the obvious example—is just as dangerous as the specific example of alcohol. The difficulty, as I understand it, lies in developing road-side equipment that can detect the presence of drugs; however, people can of course be taken to a police station for a blood test. A number of people are working on this issue because, sadly, as my hon. Friend knows, people driving under the influence of drugs is as much of a problem as people driving under the influence of drink.

Alistair Darling: The problem for much of continental Europe is that they have much higher rates of offending. They have a low limit, but it is not actually enforced. The French Government have a big problem with this issue and have stepped up detection significantly in the past few years. What matters is that people need to know that there is a strong likelihood that they will be caught. We have been working with chief constables, who have to decide where to target their resources. I strongly believe that the police should target drink driving, because it is a problem, not only at Christmas time, but throughout the year.
	The second theme is measures to stop people who drive without tax and insurance. Continuous vehicle registration has helped and the House may be interested to know that vehicle licence evasion has fallen by 400,000 since 2002, which means that the revenue lost from evasion has dropped by £60 million in the same time. The Bill allows the regulation of registration plate suppliers to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It also enables us to share driver and vehicle data with foreign authorities. That is important, because one of the themes that has emerged, especially with more and more foreign vehicles being driven in this country, is the lack of access to information about who owns them. We need to do more to build co-operation across Europe on that issue. I hope that those measures will command support on both sides of the House, although I understand that in certain parts, co-operation with Europe creates some difficulties.
	When we first published the Bill, it enabled the Department to require the surrender of paper driving licences, probably some time after 2008, to allow them to be replaced with photo-card driving licences. That part of the Bill was removed in the other place. We will reintroduce that important measure, because the police need to be sure that the person they stop at the roadside is producing their own documents. Last year alone, the police brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases in which individuals had set up more than one identity, and some of them had many identities. All of us know that the paper driving licence is reasonably easy to manipulate and therefore misrepresent. We should therefore introduce a photographic licence that has better security and makes such deception much more difficult. I am sorry that the Conservatives in the other place are opposed to that: I hope that the Conservatives here will take a more realistic view. The police and others rely on driving licences and they should be as secure as possible. We do not plan to make the change immediately, but at some point it will be necessary to recall paper licences and replace them with licences that are more robust.

Alistair Darling: The appropriate time to consider the issue would be during the debates in Committee, which will probably take place in a couple of weeks' time, although I am not sure when we will reach that part of the Bill. Such a time scale would allow a proper debate to take place in Committee, and the House could then deal with the issue on Report if necessary. That is probably the best thing to do.
	Just before I sit down, it is worth returning to the overall point. The road safety record in this country is good, but it obviously needs to get better. I am glad that the number of traffic police on the roads has increased in the past couple of years or so. I remind the House that the traffic officers for which the Highways Agency is responsible are now on most parts of the network, and almost 1,000 of them will be fully operational by the summer. They are already proving their worth, by helping to clear up after accidents, removing debris from the roads and attending to people whose vehicles have broken down. That also helps to improve road safety.
	I am sure that the Bill contains measures that will make a difference. No doubt, further representations on further necessary measures will be made, and the Government will, of course, listen to them. Anything that we can do to improve road safety and the quality of driving on our roads must be supported, and on that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Grayling: That is an interesting idea, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman include it in an amendment and discuss it with Ministers. I am not familiar with the detail of the issue, but it could be debated constructively during the passage of the Bill.
	I do not condone any motoring offence, but sometimes the Government choose the easier option when they regulate against motorists and thus fail to get to grips with the serious challenge posed by people who systematically ignore the law on tax, insurance, drink-driving and related issues. The Bill is therefore a missed opportunity. We will work constructively in Committee to address that, and we will try to introduce measures to strengthen the provisions against the most lawless drivers. I hope that the Government are willing to work with us constructively as we seek to do so.
	There are three areas in which we want to change the detail of the Bill including, first, the most controversial part of the Bill—the provision to introduce much tougher sentences for careless drivers. I understand clearly and in detail the Government's motivation for proposing a change. There is a serious problem with the distinction between the offences of careless and dangerous driving. We are all aware of instances in which the Crown Prosecution Service has not pursued a dangerous driving case so the offender has escaped with a sentence that appears much too lenient, given the crime that was committed. We therefore understand why many families are angry when a motorist's actions lead to the death of a loved one but that individual is charged with dangerous driving and escapes with only a fine.
	Those families and the organisations that work with them have made a powerful case to all hon. Members in the past few weeks. We accept the need to change the current system, but we have genuine reservations about the detail of the Government's proposals. When we debate those proposals I hope that Members on both sides of the House will accept that our concerns are genuine and not party political. We are not interested in playing off the interests of motorists against the interests of road safety, as we have a duty to get these things right. I have two concerns about the proposals, including the use of the term "careless or inconsiderate" in the wording of the proposed new offence.
	In framing legislation, the House must find the right balance between acceptance that people make mistakes, sometimes with terrible but unintended consequences, and the need to ensure that if people act in a way that they can reasonably be expected to know is unsafe they can be held to account when their action results in tragedy. That is not an easy dividing line for any politician to find, and I accept that there is a dilemma facing Ministers. There are serious difficulties. How do we judge whether someone should have looked a little harder when leaving a junction? How do we judge someone who swerves to avoid an animal and kills a cyclist instead? Is someone driving just within the speed limit on an icy road on a dark morning—conditions that could be considered dangerous—driving carelessly or dangerously? I do not believe that this country's tradition of fairness and justice makes it sensible to provide in law for long sentences for careless drivers. What does "inconsiderate" mean? Are we going to send someone to prison for five years for being inconsiderate? We therefore have serious reservations about the drafting of the offence. We will debate it carefully in Committee, and introduce proposals to improve the current system.

Stephen McCabe: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, but is not the case that he cited of someone who swerves to avoid an animal but inadvertently kills a cyclist a classic example of careless driving, but with the extraordinary consequences to which he referred earlier? Is it not right to impose a heavier penalty in those circumstances for that level of carelessness?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes on the road people make snap judgments that are wrong and that have devastating consequences. There is no intent to kill. There may have been misjudgment—with greater experience, they might have avoided that misjudgment—but that does not make them criminals who deserve a long prison sentence. We must make suitable provision in law. There are cases in which people slip through the net, and in such cases the penalty should probably have been stronger. However, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the introduction of a penalty that is so wide-ranging that it drags people who have committed an offence in the circumstances that I have just described into the net of a long prison sentence.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she has steered me towards the second part of my argument. I do not want to rehearse this afternoon what should be a careful and thoughtful discussion in Committee. The fine detail of the definitions in the Bill is properly a matter for Committee. I am simply seeking to emphasise the fact that we are not comfortable with the idea of the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving being subject to a substantial penalty. We hope that there will be a constructive debate in Committee that will find a way forward, as I accept the principle behind the Government's proposals.
	The main point that the hon. Lady made, however, is extremely important, and it reveals another weakness in those proposals. Why does the provision for heavier punishment apply only to accidents where there is a fatality? Someone may be found guilty of causing an accident in which the victim dies, and that may merit five years in prison. Why is that different from an accident in which someone is paralysed for life? There is no attempt in the Bill to make provision for such a case, so I would welcome an amendment to the new provision for heavier punishment to include people who drive while uninsured or disqualified and cause serious injury, such as a lifetime injury that prevents someone from working again. That is an omission on the Government's part. The hon. Lady is right. If someone who is driving without insurance or a licence and thus flouting the laws of the road runs someone over, disfiguring them for life, why should the penalty be any different from the penalty for causing a fatality? I hope that Ministers will give that due consideration in Committee.
	I hope that we have a constructive debate in Committee and that everyone in the House accepts that we share their motivations, as well as the motivations of campaign groups, so that we secure justice for the victims of utterly unacceptable behaviour on our roads. However, we do not want to criminalise people who make a misjudgment. Whether we like it or not, people in our society make misjudgments which, with hindsight, they probably should not have made. However, there was no intent, and they made a mistake. I want to make sure that there is a key difference between making an horrendous mistake and doing something that is utterly unacceptable.
	My second area of inquiry concerns the Government's plan to use alcohol interlock devices in cars to reduce a driver's disqualification period. I am sceptical about that: I appreciate that it has been piloted, and that there have been discussions with the insurance industry, but I want serial drink-drivers to be taken off the road and given long bans. They should not have the right significantly to reduce their disqualification periods simply by placing a piece of technology in their cars.
	We do not know whether alcohol interlock devices are foolproof. Ideas are certainly in circulation about how one can get round them, and I have had a couple of conversations about that in the past week. I have no idea whether the devices can be circumvented, but I am not sure that I want to put that to the test, as history shows that people can be pretty ingenious when it comes to getting around technological barriers.
	I see no compelling reason to go down that route, or to believe that society will reap huge benefits as a result. We will merely be introducing yet another system that has to be managed and organised, at a cost to the taxpayer. I appreciate that motorists will have to pay for the piece of kit, but public officials will have to organise its installation and the courts will have to have a follow-through process to make sure that it is installed. The proposal will cost the taxpayer, come what may, and who will administer and supervise the process? We should keep serial drink-drivers off the roads, and I am not convinced that alcohol interlock devices are the right way forward.
	Secondly, I now have a better understanding of why the Government propose that motorists who offend should go on driving education courses and thus gain some remission of their penalties, but I hope that they will make it clearer in Committee how they envisage that the system will work. What must not happen is that a person facing a three-month disqualification for speeding can get back on the road quickly, simply by signing up for a day's course.
	Thirdly, I was pleased by what the Secretary of State had to say about safety on level crossings, and I am glad that he is thinking positively about it. We thought that the measures added in the Lords were constructive, but we believe that they do not go far enough. The House should be clear that driving a car across a level crossing that is closed and has its warning lights flashing is an offence that should be treated with the utmost severity. Some horrendous railway accidents have been caused by cars on level crossings, and sometimes the circumstances mean that it is impossible for the law to do anything. There was a tragic incident near Newbury in 2004, when it is believed that a motorist sought to commit suicide by parking in front of a train. No new laws can prevent such acts, but we should take a very different view when a driver is intent simply on dodging the crossing and avoiding delay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and I have watched the Network Rail presentation of CCTV footage of absurdly dangerous behaviour by motorists at level crossings, and I suspect that Ministers have done the same. I shall describe one example to the House. One CCTV excerpt showed a level crossing with a queue of cars. A clearly impatient driver pulled out of the queue and drove around the other cars to the crossing, which had a half barrier rather than a full one. The driver steered through the barrier, only realising at the last moment that a train was about to arrive. He braked hard, and reversed quickly to get out of its way. The car missed the oncoming train by a matter of feet. Had the two collided, there might have been a multiple-fatality railway accident. Such driving can only be described as absurdly dangerous, with a wanton disregard for the safety of passengers on the train.
	If that were an isolated incident we might not argue for change, but such driving is not rare. A couple of weeks ago, I received a written answer from the Minister of State to the effect that there are 20 or so collisions each year involving cars and trains at level crossings. Many more incidents go unreported, with vehicles coming close to collision or with drivers simply getting away with jumping the lights and the gates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, has told me that there have been 22 such incidents at one crossing in his constituency in the last year alone, and about 75 in all across the county of Shropshire. Therefore, we think that their lordships were right to say that the problem needed to be addressed, and the Government were wrong to question their arguments. I am delighted that Ministers have had a change of heart, and we look forward to the amendment that they will introduce.
	The amendments tabled in the Lords contain a provision to issue six penalty points to drivers crossing a level crossing when its barriers are down, but that does not go far enough. Actions that so blatantly jeopardise other people's lives should incur a minimum penalty that includes a substantial period of disqualification from driving. In my view, it is as dangerous to drive across a level crossing when the gates are down as it is to drink and drive. There is no reason why there should be a noticeable difference in the punishments available for the two offences.
	As has always been our intention, we will introduce in Committee our idea of how an amendment to that effect might work. However, given what the Secretary of State has said today, I hope that we can have a constructive debate and end up with a sensible basic measure to improve safety on level crossings that we can all agree on. If motorists behave in a way that is totally thoughtless and reckless, the consequences can be serious—for them, and for the many innocent people on trains that go through level crossings.
	Finally, there is one big assumption behind the Bill that causes us anxiety and which we think will make it difficult to make its measures work. The Bill assumes that the police will deal with the problem of enforcing all the new penalties, and the Secretary of State said as much in his opening remarks. He mentioned the new force of traffic officers on our motorways, but he must realise that in many parts of the country, barely a handful of police are on duty at any one time. They have to cover large areas, and in too many places it is still very likely that people will get away with bad driving.
	The fact is that in many parts of the country, there are too few officers to do the job, and that is why many of the root causes of danger on our roads go unaddressed. The same is true of untaxed vehicles: in many areas, the police simply do not have the time to follow up every report of untaxed vehicles on street corners or in driveways filled with scruffy cars. I know that from my own constituency experience, but on a Saturday night, those same cars might well be the ones that are used to ply the unlicensed taxi trade, or driven around by people with a reckless disregard for the law and for the safety of others.
	That is why we must reform the way in which our police work. We need to make sure that they have the time to tackle problems such as I have described, and that they can do so systematically, not on an occasional basis. It is also why we need simple and achievable ways to tackle the problem posed by people who brazenly ignore the law. Once again, I believe that the Bill could have done much more in that regard.
	For instance, the Bill could have proposed ways to highlight whether a car was insured, so that all uninsured cars could be easily and automatically impounded. I heard what the Secretary of State said about notification cameras, which can spot registration plates and check them off against insurance registers, but other countries have much simpler systems—for example, a disc on a windscreen—to show whether a vehicle is insured. The Department has not displayed enough in the way of ideas, innovation or smart thinking when it comes to ways to tackle that a serious problem.
	The Bill could also have strengthened the sanctions available to police dealing with the problem of systematic offenders hiding behind false addresses and ignoring penalty notices. I hope that changes can be made to it in the later stages of its passage through the House that will tackle that problem. Moreover, the Bill says nothing about tackling vehicle cloning: that is a major problem for many people, and we have to deal with it.
	The Bill is a patchwork of bits and pieces—some of them good, some less so. Sadly, that is the hallmark of a Government who have proved themselves to be very good at tinkering but not always so good at setting out a clear and long-term vision and strategy for our transport system, and for road safety in Britain. We will seek to change that as the Bill goes through Committee.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have a chance to contribute to the debate and to give an extremely warm welcome to the Bill. I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) were somewhat churlish, as I believe that it contains a variety of measures that will give the police a much wider range of sanctions for many more offences than is currently the case. It will enable them to do many of the things that the hon. Gentleman described, and it will be for them and the local authorities to work out how to use the measures to improve road safety.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that the Bill did not have a strategic vision. I disagree: it maintains a clear focus on what is needed to improve road safety and deal with the different problems that arise. Moreover, implicit within it is a recognition that we need a culture change in our attitude to driving. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but running through the Bill is a much stronger awareness of the fact that a person who gets into a car is getting into something that can be a dangerous weapon. Cars can be responsible for very serious accidents, as well as being a statement of our personal freedom.
	The Bill requires a culture change among the public. I ask the Government, as they move it forward, to make sure that information is issued about the change in responsibilities and that there are awareness campaigns to change attitudes to speaking on mobile phones while driving, children wearing safety belts in the back of cars, and speeding. The Opposition have a real responsibility to be party to that as well. Let us take the example of the debate about speed cameras. I suppose that we are not meant to be party political at this point, but I have heard, particularly from the Conservative party, constant criticism of speed cameras. The assumption is that they are there to raise money, when we all know—certainly, this is the case in Northamptonshire—that many people walking around today would be dead were not it not for speed cameras and the move to bear down on speeding. A good number of young people have been spared very serious injury because speeding has been reduced.
	If we are going to achieve the changes that we can get out of the Bill, we require a culture change. I find it odd that, having said there is a great need to deal with problem drivers, the Conservative party opposes, or questions and undermines, one of the most radical proposals in the Bill, which has been welcomed, looked for and campaigned for by people outside this place as well as inside it. I refer to the proposal for a new offence of causing death by careless driving. I do not understand how it is possible to talk tough on driving and then say, "Oh, but we aren't going to have a separate offence of causing death by careless driving." If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with road safety and the horrible tragedies that result from bad or careless driving—whatever we want to call it—they must be consistent in their approach. I hope that, in Committee, they will suddenly see the light, have a road-to-Damascus conversion, as they have on so many other things, and support this important proposal.
	Over the years, many colleagues have pressed for a new offence of causing death by careless driving, because we have all heard the most harrowing tales of deaths caused by careless driving in our constituencies. I pay tribute to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who, as he knows, campaigned, as he has, on behalf of his constituents, and to many other Members who are still on the Labour Benches and who have done a vast amount of work over the years.
	I took up the matter in a private Member's Bill following consultation with young people in my constituency. It was one of those cases of seeing further when one sits on the shoulders of giants because colleagues have done much more work than I have. The young people chose it as the piece of legislation that they most wanted to see on the statute book, which is interesting, since many of the briefings sent to us by outside organisations pick up on the fact that driving and road safety issues have a particular impact on young people and are of particular concern to them.
	I thank the schools that took part in the consultation and supported the private Member's Bill: Kingsthorpe community college, Duston school, Weston Favell school, Northampton School for Girls, Thomas Becket school, Roade school and Unity college. In particular, they were moved by the story of Alexine Melnik, a constituent of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. She was a teenager who was killed by a careless driver. Her killer escaped with a derisory sentence. The schools met with Alexine's brother and parents, who joined them in lobbying the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), to get such a measure on the statute book. They followed the process through, and I hope that they will be able to come to the Committee to see the legislation they have campaigned for go through.

Tom Harris: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in that I am not convinced that we should start jailing people for long periods on the basis that they are careless. Does my hon. Friend believe that every single time a pedestrian is seriously injured or a killed by the driver of a car, the driver must always face a long prison sentence?

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. In working on my private Member's Bill, I had to talk through that issue with a number of people, and, if he is happy for me to do so, I will deal with his point later. Certainly, there is an argument to be made. The details of how the measure is to work have to be spelled out, but the case for having such an offence on the statute book is overwhelming and well understood by the public, as well as being supported, I am happy to say, by the Government.
	Other than local cases, one reason why young people in my constituency supported the measure was the statistics on the number of young people killed in road traffic accidents each year. As we have heard, many of the people killed by careless drivers are children. A recent case that has been particularly highlighted took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). A little girl was holding her mother's hand when she was killed. In 1999, some 191 children under the age of 14 were killed on the road. Road accidents were probably the biggest single category of fatal accidents among children. In addition, 42,051 children under 15 were injured. The statistics also show that young drivers are much more likely to be involved and injured in accidents. A total of 64,000 drivers aged 16 to 24 were involved in road traffic accidents during the last year for which figures were available. Although young people account for only 4 per cent. of the driving population, they account for 13 per cent. of accidents on the roads.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also mentioned the need to focus on where accidents take place and which children are most at risk. I believe—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm this in his winding-up speech—that the children most at risk are those in inner-city areas. There is a close correlation between poverty and road deaths among children. It is possible to consider speed limits in those areas and make sure that we tackle issues in areas where children are most likely to be killed or injured. With those kinds of measures and sanctions in place, the graduated penalties in the Bill are the right way to go about dealing with the very real problem of speeding.
	The offence of causing death by careless driving will address the burning sense of injustice held by the families of people killed in such accidents. A survey for the Department for Transport found that, when people were killed in road accidents and a conviction secured, only 20 per cent. of victims' families thought that justice had been served. So, even when the driver was caught and convicted and the victim's family at least had their day in court, there was still an overwhelming sense that justice had not been served.
	In addition—this comes partly to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell—there is a credibility gap in relation to offences and penalties in the existing law. There is nothing between causing death by dangerous driving and quite minor traffic offences. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is always room to consider carefully which charges can be used, but in the case of the child in the Burnley constituency, the driver could not be charged with dangerous driving, so he was charged with only the most minor offences. Imagine the feelings of someone who sees their child killed and the driver done for an offence such as driving without a licence.
	In the context of the penalties at the court's disposal, I welcome the new offence and the prison sentence that attaches to it. In my private Member's Bill I proposed a sentence of 10 years, but the five-year prison sentence fills the credibility gap by increasing the sanctions available to the courts.
	A further aspect is the likelihood of being charged with dangerous driving, which relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. From the briefings that we have had, which I am sure he also received, it seems that more and more traffic offenders are not being charged with dangerous driving, which has a high threshold. They tend to be charged with relatively minor offences, even when their driving mistakes were caused by gross negligence. The new penalties should help to redress the balance in the patterns of charging up till now.
	Against that background, I welcome the new offence of causing death by careless driving. It was introduced at Committee stage in the other place, and the penalties were reduced on Third Reading. I understand that at one point their lordships thought that they were removing entirely the possibility of imprisonment. In fact, they removed only the ability of magistrates courts to impose a prison sentence, but that reduced the effect of the provision. That flies in the face of the public demand for tougher sanctions for causing death by careless driving.

Sally Keeble: The offence would be on the statute book, but the penalties would be weaker and the magistrates courts would not have the option of imprisoning offenders. The possibility of community sentencing would also be lost. Outside organisations are concerned about the impact that that would have.
	There is a further point. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked tough about dangerous driving and bad drivers, but resiled from that when it came to some of the details. I hope he will reconsider. If we tell people that they must pay more careful attention to their driving, and if we take the bold step, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, of saying that they will otherwise go to prison, there is a need for consistency and care in the message that we send out and in what we tell drivers to do. If we blow hot and cold, people are left not knowing where they stand. That also dilutes the effectiveness of a Bill that deals with the range of driving behaviour, introducing more penalties and sending out robust messages about what people ought to be doing when they are in cars.

Tom Brake: Perhaps not surprisingly, I rise to support many of the measures in the Bill, as well as the Government's objectives of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the road by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children.
	Good progress has been made on this issue, which we welcome, but as the Secretary of State said, nine people still die every day on our roads, and we need to ensure that the issue is given necessary priority. I tabled some parliamentary questions today to see how many people are working on road safety in comparison with rail or aviation safety, to find out how many resources are put into these different areas and whether we are giving the right priority to this important issue.
	There are some areas in which progress is not as speedy as in others. On teenagers, for instance, and particularly cyclists and pedestrians in the 12 to 15-year-old group, there are clearly problems. I welcome the fact that some specific advertising campaigns are being run to try to address that group. As hon. Members will know, accident statistics for motor cyclists have risen since 1997. More focus is needed on that area, as well as on deaths involving drink-driving, which have increased by 2 per cent. since 2002. Progress is being made, but there are areas in which we are slipping back or on which more focus is needed.
	The Government cannot take action soon enough on hand-held mobile phones. I am sure that all hon. Members will have witnessed improper use, whether by a lorry driver who uses his mobile phone while negotiating a narrow road or by someone driving a car with their phone jammed to their ear by their shoulder, while they steer with their free hand if we are lucky, or with their knees if we are unlucky. The message that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous—more dangerous, in fact, than drink-driving—has not got through. I hope that the measures before us will ensure that that message hits home.
	The Bill must also focus on speed, on which there is some agreement between the parties, but also some disagreement. I was interested that the official Opposition spokesman was unable to say whether the Conservative party would call for the speed limit to be increased to 80 mph. We have on record, however, the fact that in June 2005, the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords clearly called for an 80 mph limit to be considered. We will await with interest the Conservative transport policy, which I have been told will be launched by the end of this year, and in which we will perhaps see the detail of the policy. If the proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, I shall be interested to see how the environmental aspects will be addressed.
	The Secretary of State has explained the reasons why he thinks that it is appropriate for a reduced number of points to be available to people who exceed the speed limit by only a "relatively" small amount. I am very worried about the message that that sends out. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that there was a need for consistency in Government policy. I am not convinced that saying to people, "Well, if you exceed the speed limit by only a small amount, the number of points that you get will be lower than those given to someone who exceeds it by a greater amount" is a consistent message. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by drivers travelling at 35 mph as opposed to 30 mph are twice as likely to be killed. Sending out any message suggesting that people can get away with breaking the limit by a small amount and that that is not a problem will be a matter of significant concern.

Tom Brake: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, but I am still worried about the message that is being sent out by differentiating between smaller and larger speed excesses, taking into account the fact that people are twice as likely to die with just a 5 mph increase over the 30 mph limit.
	The Secretary of State has put on record his support for safety cameras, on which the Liberal Democrats broadly agree. Such cameras have a clear role to play as part of an array of measures for improving road safety, and I do not think that politicians of any party should be afraid to say as much. The Bill also tackles the issue of devices, and identifying devices that can detect radar. Perhaps we need to await the official Conservative Opposition policy, but I understand that the Conservative spokesman in the other place argued in favour of banning equipment that could block or jam signals, but also argued that we should perhaps not be so worried about equipment that can detect signals. Some years ago, I engaged in an interesting debate in this Chamber involving Alan Clark, who suggested that such equipment is used by drivers as a means of measuring speed, perhaps overlooking somewhat the fact that most cars have speedometers for that purpose.
	Of course, we support the measures to require repeat drink-driving offenders to retake their driving tests. Other hon. Members have already referred to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety evidence on drink-driving. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's response, in which he gave a justification that has been given previously for not supporting a reduction in the drink-driving limit to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood—a limit that is commonly used across Europe. The Government must explain in more detail why they do not support that proposal. We want to see a decrease in deaths and serious injuries, and PACTS evidence suggests that 65 lives a year would be saved as a result of reducing the limit to 50 mg and that 230 people a year would be saved from serious injury. Perhaps the Minister will produce some evidence that challenges the PACTS analysis, but if he does not do so, we need a firm indication why he is not willing to support a measure that, according to PACTS, has significant safety implications.
	We welcome the provision of facilities to raise fixed penalties or to secure deposits from foreign or non-GB licence holders. I have one caveat: hon. Members may have been stopped by the police and fined on the spot in another country, in which case they may have wondered whether their cash went into the coffers of the relevant body or whether it supplemented that police officer's weekly income. We know that that would not happen here, but whatever mechanism is implemented, drivers must be sure that their fines arrive in the right place, so we must provide transparency.
	We welcome measures to stop the clocking of vehicles, but the Government need to do more work on vehicle registration. A couple of weeks ago, I got a letter from an organisation that asks drivers to confirm the mileage on vehicles at the time at which they were sold. However, the letter asked me to confirm the mileage on a vehicle that I have never owned, so there are clearly issues around ensuring the accuracy of such databases.
	I welcome the Government's push for higher standards for professional driving instructors. On the face of it, this is a constituency point, but I suspect that all hon. Members know about it: I hope that higher standards for professional driving instructors will allow us to get away from a small number of streets in each of our constituencies being used repeatedly by driving instructors to enable their clients to practise U-turns, reversing around corners and manoeuvres. I have been lobbied on that point, and I am sure that other hon. Members have too.
	The safe transport of radioactive material is a specific issue that may fall outside the remit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Bill will help in cases such as that in March 2002, when radioactive material in cancer treatment equipment from a hospital in Leeds went on a merry journey around the country during which it emitted a beam of radiation, which, according to the Health and Safety Executive, was between 100 and 1,000 times higher than what would normally be considered to be a high dose.

Tom Brake: It will be interesting to see the Transport Committee recommendations, which I am sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider carefully. We will wait to see whether the Secretary of State needs to row back from the statement that those reports were "rubbish".
	I have already referred to the official Opposition's proposal to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, which we will examine carefully.

Tom Brake: I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman looks back at Hansard he will see that I have clearly set out a number of Liberal Democrat positions on the Bill. He will have an opportunity to consider our proposals in greater detail in Committee. Those proposals will be put forward by whoever is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that stage of the Bill.
	We agree with the Conservatives on the proposals made by the British Red Cross. It no longer suggests changes to the practical driving test to allow first aid to be incorporated in it, but is instead considering whether there are grounds to change the theory test, and possibly the hazard perception test, to include elements of first aid. That would be sensible because, according to the Red Cross, 57 per cent. of deaths caused by road accidents happen in the first few minutes after a crash before the emergency services arrive, and up to 85 per cent. of those could be prevented if first aid were administered immediately. The Minister will be aware that on Second Reading in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham said:
	"Let me make the obvious point that we accept what the noble Lord says. We are considering extending the test to include additional first aid material."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 1609.]
	I hope that the Minister is able to clarify what progress has been made on that and whether the Government's hand will be forced, to some extent, by what is going to happen in 2008 with European Union legislation relating to commercial drivers having to demonstrate that they have basic first aid skills.
	I hope that the Minister can clarify another matter that was raised on Second Reading—the use of rear seatbelts for 14 and 15-year-olds. I understand that there is a gap in the provisions that could be sorted out simply by making it the driver's responsibility to ensure that they wear seatbelts.
	Other Members have mentioned the conspicuousness of heavy goods vehicles. In the other place, their lordships decided to amend the Bill to include a reference to conspicuousness stating that
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape".
	Will the Minister clarify, first, whether he is willing to accept that change and, secondly, whether he would be willing to accept a stronger provision requiring that the Secretary of State "shall" ensure that retro-reflective tape is fitted? HGVs have been involved in a significant number of accidents, which would presumably be reduced by adding such reflective strips. In 2001, there were 9,000 collisions in which an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent. of those cases, the HGV was struck on its side. It is not unreasonable to assume that a significant number of those accidents could have been avoided, or their seriousness reduced, as a result of fitting that tape. That would cost about £100 to £150 per vehicle—not a significant extra cost given that the retail price of a new vehicle is in the order of £100,000 and that it could make a great difference in terms of reducing road accidents and improving road safety.
	Given the scale of road accidents and deaths—nine per day—Liberal Democrats argue, as we did in the Lords, that there is a need for a road accidents investigations board, similar to those that exist for aviation and rail, to investigate the accidents that occur. Some of those will be one-offs, while some will not. Sometimes there will be a problem in a particular location. In other cases, it will be difficult to identify a pattern when looking at individual accidents, but by looking at the totality it may be possible to draw conclusions from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who considered this when he was our transport spokesman, found that Sweden has a similar organisation, which noted that because Sweden is a rocky, mountainous country, there are often large rocks by the roadside or in the road. It identified that as an issue of national significance that it needed to resolve. That is the sort of matter that the board could consider.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who is proactive on these issues, has requested, possibly because he has the largest pedicab manufacturer in the country in his constituency, that we consider pedicab licensing, or at least allowing local authorities to choose to license pedicabs if they are so inclined.
	I am sure that many Members will have been lobbied about the issue of sleep disorders. The research shows that one in six HGV drivers suffers from a severe sleeping disorder of which they are often unaware. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), who is in the Chamber, for that information. I hope that she may have an opportunity to refer to it shortly. The Government could focus more attention on that matter.
	There is much to be welcomed in the Bill and much that we can support, but there are many issues to which we will need to return in Committee, including drink-drive limits and reduced speed limits of 20 mph and 30 mph in residential areas—a significant matter that I did not mention. It is unacceptable that the limit on unclassified roads is 60 mph, which is completely inappropriate in many cases. The Committee is the right place to discuss those issues. We therefore do not seek to detain the House further and are happy to join the Government and the official Opposition in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: This week, my Select Committee—the Science and Technology Committee—is taking evidence in New York and Washington. I pulled out of the visit at the last minute because I had promised several of my constituents that I would not only push for a change in the law in this policy area but bring their concerns to the Floor of the House and try to express some of their grief.
	I want particularly to discuss clauses 20 to 33, as amended in the other place, on new offences, increases in penalties, and other provisions about offences. Since my election to Parliament in 1997, I have been outraged by the outcome of several trials following serious road traffic accidents that have resulted in the death of my constituents. The first family that I dealt with was the Willis family, whose son Gareth was killed at the age of 21 on 22 May 1999 in a head-on crash on the crown of a bridge by a hit-and-run driver while riding his motorcycle. His son, Joseph, aged seven, was a pillion passenger. Although he was thrown off the bike into a field and badly injured, he fortunately survived. However, the car driver ran away from the scene of the accident, although he gave himself up the following day.
	Initially, the 31-year-old driver was given a 30-month sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and banned from driving for five years. Half the sentence was suspended for community service. The driver had had only two driving lessons, was driving at more than 50 miles an hour in a 30 mph restricted area without a licence or insurance. He had several previous car crime convictions and had been drinking earlier that day.
	Gareth's family were devastated by their loss and especially by the sentence—so much so that they came to see me. The Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal and the driver's sentence was increased, but only by one year. Regrettably, the appeal was heard on 16 November 2000 without the family being informed or invited to make an oral impact submission, which they were entitled to make, about the effect of the accident on the family.
	Another tragedy with which I have dealt was the death of eight-year-old Billy Joe Dean in the village of Stoneclough, which lies between Bolton and Bury. A 40-year-old male was riding his 1,000 cc Suzuki motor cycle on 24 August 2002, having just left a public house. Evidence was given in court that he accelerated to such an extent that he performed a wheelie as he approached a double bend. The motor cyclist lost control of the vehicle, which glanced off an approaching Porsche and hit Billy Joe as he was walking along the pavement. Billy Joe died almost immediately from his injuries because he was crushed by the motor cycle, which flew through the air and hit him against a garden wall. The accident shook the village of Stoneclough and the BBC chose it as one of two cases of causing death by dangerous driving that it included in a documentary, which was broadcast with a view to getting the change in the law that the Bill tries to establish.
	The motor cyclist received a six-year jail sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, driving without insurance and driving while disqualified. The sentence was reduced to five years in the Court of Appeal. He was also banned from driving for eight years. He had badly injured himself in the collision and submitted a guilty plea in court. Like the Willis family, the Dean family learned of the reduction of the sentence on appeal through reading about it in the Bolton Evening News. Both families were outraged at the outcome of the trials and the way in which they, as indirect victims of their sons' deaths, had been treated by the British judicial system.
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years, but the courts hardly ever apply the sentence at the top end of the range.
	Six other tragic accidents, which occurred in my constituency or a few yards outside its boundary, led to the deaths of three-year-old Amicie Nwokeochar on 15 November 2003; 36-year-old Lisa Halligan and 28-year-old Michael Jeffries, killed in the same accident on 1 May 2004; 13-year-old Carla Bate on 8 August 2004; nine-year-old Ellesse Ruth Gore on 19 October 2005; 46-year-old Ellen Newman, killed, like Billy Joe, on the bends in Stoneclough village on 5 January this year, and 45-year-old Laura Entwistle on 21 January this year.
	I have been closely involved with the Nwokeochar tragedy, which was caused by a gentleman who was a few weeks away from his 90th birthday. I have applied for an Adjournment debate to bring to light the safety record of older drivers and I shall therefore not dwell on that incident today. I am also involved with the family of Ellen Newman. They recently approached me for help.
	In two of the six accidents that I just cited, several other people were seriously injured. In four, the driver left the scene of the accident. The families of the victims of such tragedies often find it hard to accept the significantly reduced sentences that are given when the driver enters a guilty plea. That is a problem. Victims' families also know that prisoners can be released on a Parole Board hearing after the half-way point of the sentence. They will be released on licence two thirds of the way through a sentence in any case. In some cases, the drivers are released from prison not long after the trials, when the families continue to grieve. I do not believe that those families ever stop grieving.
	When a person—they are nearly all young men—drives a stolen car without a licence or insurance at high speeds in restricted areas, especially if he has previous convictions for road traffic offences, or has taken alcohol or other drugs that affect his ability to drive, and kills another person, often leaving the scene of the accident, the courts should inflict a severe sentence, which takes account of all the offences committed on the day. Drivers who kill while committing multiple offences should be charged with a greater offence than causing death by dangerous driving. The offence of vehicle homicide has been floated in some quarters.
	"Dangerous Driving and the Law", an evaluation of the operation of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which was commissioned by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and published in 2002, reports that 46 per cent. of the dangerous driving offences that it examined were committed by multiple offenders—those, mainly young males, who have previous road traffic convictions.
	It is clear to me from hon. Members' contributions, including mine, since the 1997 general election, that the law on serious traffic offences is regarded as unsatisfactory. We reflect the view of the public, who are rightly outraged by a legal system that considers death and injury to be less serious if it is caused by someone driving a motor vehicle. Those who commit crimes such as petty theft or burglary regularly receive more severe sentences from the courts than those who kill—often wilfully—on our British road system.
	For those reasons, I welcome the new offences, for which the Bill provides, of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, with a maximum sentence—hopefully, in each case—of two years. An amazing 1.2 million drivers—one in 20 motorists—regularly drive without insurance.
	In England and Wales, an indictable offence of manslaughter is available but few prosecutions are made under that heading. RoadPeace believes that the proper charge following a culpable road death is manslaughter. However, I welcome the fact that the Bill allows, for the first time, an alternative verdict to be brought when prosecution for an offence of manslaughter fails.
	The test for dangerous driving in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is defined thus:
	"Did the driver's driving fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and would it be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous?"
	It can be difficult to obtain a conviction of causing death by dangerous driving under that definition, as police forces throughout the country will confirm.
	Trials collapse for various reasons, including a lack of convincing evidence produced by either the police or the forensic services, failure of witnesses to convince either a judge or a jury of the driver's guilt, and sometimes a badly handled prosecution case. Even in successful cases, the sentences applied are often low, given that the driver's behaviour has resulted in one and sometimes more deaths. The courts do not appear to appreciate that the maximum sentence that is currently available is 14 years.
	The lesser offence of dangerous driving is an either-way offence, with a maximum penalty of only two years' imprisonment. The summary offence of careless and inconsiderate driving is available in two forms: driving without due care and attention, or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. Clause 23 increases the maximum penalty for the offence of careless driving from £2,500 to £5,000. I welcome that.
	A new indictable offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs was introduced, on the recommendation of the 1988 North report, by the Road Traffic Act 1991. A further indictable offence of causing injury by furious driving was introduced by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and right hon. and hon. Members might have noticed that the Bill retains that rather curious offence.
	The lesser charge of careless driving often appears inappropriate, particularly in cases in which there has been a fatality and the evidence points to the fact that there has been an element of dangerous driving. The gap between the higher offence of dangerous driving and the lower offence of careless driving is seen by many, including me, as just too great. That is why I support the introduction of the new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, with a maximum sentence of five years, as set out in clause 20.
	That is one of the more controversial aspects of the Bill. It is almost exclusively opposed by the legal profession, as it will make accidental conduct seriously criminal and worthy of imprisonment for the first time. However, the Crown Prosecution Service has stated:
	"The new offence will be valuable in bridging the existing gap between causing death by dangerous driving and careless driving. In the most difficult cases that fall very close to the line dividing these two offences, it will enable prosecutors to place both offences on the indictment, thus allowing the jury to make their assessments of the facts."
	Research has found that the introduction of a new offence of causing death by careless driving was favoured by only 55 per cent. of those who responded to a postal survey—not a great percentage. Nevertheless, most right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate since I came to the House in 1997 appear to believe that the consequences of a motorist's action, especially in provable cases of dangerous driving, should be taken into consideration by the courts. Although the present law allows that, the courts tend to behave differently. Even with a charge of careless driving, the fact that death has been a consequence should be a serious consideration in some cases, but at present it is not, even though it has been allowed by the law in England since the Simmonds appeal in January 1999.
	It is my opinion that the most serious cases of road traffic accidents involving death and serious injury should be dealt with by the Crown court; the majority are dealt with at present by magistrates courts. That was also the opinion expressed in the Transport Committee's report on traffic law and its enforcement, published at the end of 2004.
	Probably one of the most difficult cases that I have been closely involved with is the Haque case. My constituent, five-year-old Hishamul Haque, was killed at the Camelot theme park at Charnock Richard, near Chorley in Lancashire, on the evening of 18 April 2004. The Haque family had travelled with their relatives and several children to the theme park in three cars during the morning, and had spent the entire day enjoying themselves at Camelot. They decided to return to their cars at about 5.30 pm, where they had some refreshments. Then, a game of football began in the almost empty car parking area. On the fringe of the car park are larger bays for the parking of coaches and buses, and the two areas are separated by another area which is marked by broad white lines and is used as a service road to the car parks.
	A service bus entered the car park just after 6 pm and proceeded to drive along the service road. The bus driver admits seeing the group playing football to his right, and also admits having seen Hishamul Haque chase the football out of the crowd in his direction and obviously across the path of the bus. The driver's explanation was that he kept to the left of the service road to avoid a collision with the young boy, who was running from his right towards the bus. However, the driver did not brake to stop the bus, and neither did he sound his horn. He also claims not to have seen or heard Mr. Haque, the father, shouting and gesticulating at him about the approaching danger. Tragically, it was too late and Hishamul was crushed by the front and rear wheels of the bus. The collision occurred in the part of the car park reserved for coaches and buses, to the left of the service road.
	There has been a dispute about the speed of the bus. The driver claimed that he was driving at between 10 and 15 mph, while Mr. Haque claimed that he was driving at between 30 and 35 mph. Other witnesses, and evidence from a police reconstruction of the accident, support the driver's account. Lancashire police arrested the driver on a charge of suspected manslaughter. However, following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Before His Honour Judge Slinger in the Crown court at Preston on 9 December 2004, the defence was successful in applying for the proceedings to be dismissed on the ground that the evidence did not meet the test for dangerous driving in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to which I have just referred.
	Obviously, the family were devastated by this decision, and they came to see me for advice. I arranged a meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service at Preston to discuss Judge Slinger's decision. On 13 to 15 February 2006, a trial was held in Chorley magistrates court before Judge Ward, and the driver was acquitted of a careless driving charge.
	While Britain has the safest roads in Europe, too many people still die every year and 10 times more are injured. Significantly, almost one third of the deaths are caused by a person at work on the roads. I welcome the progress that the Bill makes, and I congratulate the Transport Committee and the Department for Transport on all the work that they have done to allow the Bill to come before the House. During the last summer vacation, I read many research reports published by the Department, and I am full of praise for the amount of work that it has done. I am grateful for this opportunity to enter into a debate on a policy area that is of great interest to many of my constituents.

Greg Knight: We can all support the aims of the Road Safety Bill, because safety should be paramount on our roads at all times, and all classes of road user have a part to play—not only vehicle drivers but pedestrians, cyclists and passengers. Safety on our roads cannot be achieved merely by soaking motorists with fines and penalty points. The most effective approach is a mixture of education, incentive and, when a transgression has occurred, punishment, whether against a motorist for speeding, a cyclist for ignoring a red traffic light or a pedestrian for jaywalking—that is, stepping off the kerb into the highway when it is unsafe to do so. This is an ongoing battle, and it will not be won by the passage of the Bill. However, Members in all parties will have played their part if, during its parliamentary passage, we seek to improve its scope.
	I turn first to the Bill's contents, before making one or two observations on matters that are—for the moment, at any rate—outwith its scope. Some of its provisions are non-contentious, and rightly so. The provisions on road safety grants are to be welcomed. It is right and proper that the income from fines should be used for local transport facilities, or to fund road safety improvements. Similarly, I welcome the provisions for graduated fixed penalties, and on graduated fixed penalty points. Those proposals make sense; graduations should certainly apply to points as well as to fines. Indeed, when the breach of the law has been minute, or there are exceptional circumstances, there might be a case for nil points being imposed. I hope that that is something we can examine in detail in Committee. Flexibility is important so that, as far as possible, punishment always fits the crime.
	I have some concerns about vehicle examiners giving fixed penalty notices. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address them. The police are trained in road traffic matters and the rules of evidence. Consequently, an honest policeman doing his job has a sense of fairness and justice when dealing with a motorist. If we give the power to issue fixed penalty notices to vehicle examiners, what training will they have? Will they be required to maintain a notebook in which to write down any comments made by a motorist that may be relevant in any plea of mitigation? What guidance will be given about when and where they should operate? Will they still need to be accompanied by an experienced police officer? If not, what powers will they have to stop a vehicle on the highway? I hope that the Minister can answer those questions when he addresses us later.
	Clause 5 and schedule 1 clearly envisage a system in which fixed penalties are issued when the offences are detected remotely—that is, when video footage is viewed and vehicles that may not have insurance or a valid MOT are identified. Will the Minister consider formulating guidelines so that provision can be made for a camera to photograph and monitor vehicles before they are stopped by vehicle examiners on appropriate occasions?
	During busy periods, it would make sense for vehicle examiners to have someone viewing a screen showing vehicles some distance away so that vehicles that have insurance and a current MOT can be allowed to pass without being pulled over. Vehicle examiners could then focus on those vehicles that have already been identified as perhaps being shady in some respect or as being on the road unlawfully. Where a law-abiding motorist is going about his business, every effort should be made to prevent him being stopped unnecessarily and thereby having his journey time lengthened. I think that that makes sense, and I hope that the Minister does, too. Will he reassure the House that if these examiners are given the powers envisaged in the Bill, they will not suddenly appear in every constituency setting up road blocks and stopping traffic merely to raise more money for the Government? I hope that they will have a duty to behave reasonably, not oppressively.
	The provisions in clause 11 relating to financial penalty deposits will be welcomed on both sides of the House. They are clearly aimed at foreign truckers who are competing for work with British truckers. Foreign truckers are, generally speaking, able to put cheaper fuel in their vehicles, and once they get to this country they often flout our laws and ignore fines when they are imposed. I warmly welcome the provisions in clause 11, which are long overdue. Most law-abiding motorists will welcome them too. But will they be used only against heavy goods vehicles, or will they also be used against private vehicles?
	I shall give the Minister an example. Some years ago, I was introduced to an American gentleman who was over here studying. He revealed that his studies were expected to take three years or so. He had brought over an American vehicle, a Chevrolet Corvette. For those who do not know what that is, it is a powerful sports car. His idea was to use his American car with American plates while pursuing his studies and to sell the car over here when he concluded them and returned to America. I was appalled and alarmed to discover that he had allowed his insurance and the American equivalent of vehicle excise duty to lapse, but had kept the car on American plates. He thought it was a rather good wheeze to have motoring on the cheap while he was in the UK. That sort of behaviour is to be deplored. I know that it does not occur on the same scale as heavy goods vehicle drivers ignoring their fines, but does the Minister intend clause 11 to catch people who are in the UK for the time being and are using a vehicle registered overseas which does not have valid tax and insurance? Those cases ought to be caught by clause 11.
	I am less sceptical than my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about alcohol ignition interlocks, but in Committee we should look closely at how the Minister thinks they will work, and at the ways in which some people might seek to get round them. I have heard that if a motorist fills up two or three balloons of the sort that are used at parties while he is sober and when he gets into his car after he has had a drink he connects one of them to the interlock, it will release the ignition so that the car can be started. We need to look at ways in which the unscrupulous, dishonest and drunk motorist could abuse this system if we approve it.

Greg Knight: I am talking about flexible speed limits, not a permanent increase in the speed limit. I use the word "flexible" in the sense that most people would recognise; it is possible to flex downwards as well as upwards. There are occasions—when it is foggy, or there is snow on the ground—on which the speed limit on a motorway should be reduced to below 70 mph. I think that we should trial the system of flexible limits to see where it takes us. I do not believe that it would lead to the consequences envisaged by the hon. Gentleman if it were applied when traffic flows were light and road conditions good.
	I also think that we should consider introducing flexible speed limits in the vicinity of schools. I know that a certain organisation has conducted a letter-writing campaign asking all Members to support blanket speed limits in villages and blanket 20 mph speed limits near schools. I think that it has something of a case, but I do not support the one-size-fits-all suggestion. There a number of villages in my constituency in which I would not want a 30 mph speed limit to be introduced, because the roads passing through them can safely carry traffic at a higher speed.
	However, I think that we should consider using flexibility, particularly with the advent of electronic speed signs and flashing warning signs, which are now available to us but were not a few years ago, and at trialling 20 mph zones outside schools, although not during the school holidays, because an inappropriate speed limit will be disobeyed by motorists. If they feel that the speed limit is not just they will ignore it, but we could try it an hour or so before school commences, or 15 minutes before schoolchildren come out and for an hour after the school day has finished. That is what I would like to see. Let us try flexible and temporary speed limits where appropriate. They will signify to the responsible driver, when he sees the flashing "20" sign, that school children are about to be in the vicinity. I think that most drivers would respond to that positively.

Lee Scott: I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who raised the issue of pedicabs, which are unchecked and unregulated, and cause major problems on our roads. There is no recourse for anyone involved in an accident with them, and that issue should be tackled as a matter of urgency. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke about first aid-training for drivers. I appreciate that refresher courses would be required, but if someone has learned something there are some aspects that they will never forget. If that training saves one life, it is worth while, but I recommend that we go a stage further. Some of our European neighbours and many other countries make it compulsory to carry first-aid kits in all vehicles, which benefits everyone if a vehicle is involved in an accident or, indeed, if the driver and passengers witness an accident. I urge the Government to consider making it a legal requirement to carry first-aid boxes in cars.
	Speed cameras have been mentioned. I fully support them where they make our roads safe. However, there is a speed camera in my constituency at the bottom of the M11 exit to the Redbridge roundabout, where accidents have gone up by 300 per cent. since it was installed. Either it is the wrong place and needs to be moved, or one must assume that it is there for other reasons. Speed cameras should be there to make our roads safer, and for no other reason. Hon. Members have spoken about the blight of mini-motorcycles, which is a huge problem. In my constituency and, I am sure, in others, one sees very young children with no head gear or training driving unlicensed vehicles on the road. We have read in the press about many accidents and, indeed, fatalities. That must be stopped. It is not simply a matter of asking our police force or, indeed, local authorities, to enforce a ban—new legislation is required to bring mini-motorcycles into line with other road vehicles.
	I am in favour of a 20 mph speed limit near our schools. I praise the London borough of Redbridge for its work in imposing those limits around schools in my constituency, particularly primary schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said that there are certain times of year when a limit is not necessary, but I disagree, as they are needed throughout the year, including school holidays, in residential areas where children play. The 20 mph limit has saved many lives over the years, and it will continue to do so. As we have heard, the question of whether a child is hit at 20 mph or 30 mph can make the difference between serious injury and a life and death situation.

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I am afraid that I disagree. The permanent enforcement of lower speed limits is required. Cars are usually parked in the street—as we heard, planning regulations mean that homes do not have off-road car parking spaces—creating narrow spaces where children run in and out. Children will be children, and if we can do something to prevent fatalities, we are duty-bound to take such action.
	The flashing speed signs just mentioned by my hon. Friend offer a valid way to reduce traffic speed in such areas and they should be used. However, I am not as opposed as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is to the use of speed humps. They are not needed in some places and should be removed, but they add to traffic calming in residential areas. We need to look at all methods of traffic calming, and we should not lose the contribution that speed humps make.
	We have heard today about some tragic cases involving fatalities caused by drink driving or by people using drugs or mobile phones while driving. Drivers who hit and run must be punished most severely, and such matters will be teased out further in Committee, but how do families feel when one of their members is killed by someone who has been caught driving while drunk? When such a person is given a light sentence by the court, we have to ask whether he or she is paying the price for the crime that has been committed.
	If no crime has been committed in such an incident, it is clear that the court must be able to respond accordingly, and I am sure that that is another matter for consideration in Committee. We need to look at the penalties that the court can apply, but it must have the power to send an offender to prison in some cases.
	We have also heard about cars from eastern Europe. In my constituency, I see many people driving around in cars that are not roadworthy. Often, they are uninsured, and it is frequently alleged that the people behind the wheel are not qualified to drive. I hope that the Bill will tackle that problem. How can such people be prosecuted if they commit an offence that leads to a tragic accident?
	I support and welcome much of the Bill. As other Opposition Members have noted, some elements need teasing out in Committee, but any measure that can save a life or prevent the tragic suffering of families who have lost a loved one must be welcomed, and I do so.

Tom Harris: It is a delight to be able to take part in a debate that, so far, has been almost worryingly saturated in consensus. However, I shall try to continue in the same spirit.
	I begin by congratulating and paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for her contribution today and for the immense work that she has done in previous years as part of the campaign to introduce the new offence of causing death by careless driving, which is included in the Bill. I expressed my reservations about that earlier in the debate, and I look forward to thrashing the matter out at length in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend is a member of that Committee, as the power that she leant to her arguments will serve her well there.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). His contribution to the debate was one of the most powerful and moving speeches that I have heard during my time in the House.
	Keeping with the spirit of consensus, I welcome this very important Bill. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my own council, Glasgow city council, and in particular to Robert Booth, the director of land services. He has spearheaded the statutory speed limit of 20 mph around every primary school in the city. That system is an innovative departure and, in line with the suggestion from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), allows the flashing speed limit signs to be switched off during the schools' summer recesses. I welcome that and think that it is an effective use of the new power. I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) does not believe that the 20 mph limit should be switched off during school holidays, but I am sure that we can discuss that in Committee.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred at length to his dissatisfaction with traffic humps—so-called sleeping policemen—and I agree with much of what he said. In a previous existence—as well as while being a Member of this House—I found that residents often felt that sleeping policemen were a panacea. They think that if there is speeding in their neighbourhood, they should get some traffic humps. If someone is tragically killed in an accident, the answer is always traffic humps, but it is not always the right answer. The emergency services have grave reservations about sleeping policemen. I might not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman in saying that they should not be used at all, but I think that people have unrealistically high expectations of the effects that sleeping policemen will have on their neighbourhoods.

Tom Harris: I will resist that temptation because such a body would simply be another quango and would create more bureaucracy—I am not instinctively in favour of such developments. Additionally, given the number of accidents that take place, such an investigation unit would repeat its investigations each time that one occurred. On balance, such a publicly-funded and unelected quango would not achieve a great deal, but I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's arguments in Committee.
	When the Bill becomes an Act, its success will depend on the greater acceptance and use of speed cameras. I declare an interest at this point because I have six penalty points on my licence. I was clocked on the M6 in December 2003—I will not tell hon. Members the speed—and five months earlier, I was caught by a speed camera on the A9. Even though the offences were five months apart, I found out about both endorsements in December 2003 and thus went from having a completely clean licence to having a licence with six points on it in two weeks. I reveal this partly in case someone else reveals it first and, secondly, because it has made me think carefully whenever I drive. I need my car to do my job.
	After such a fright from getting six penalty points on my licence in such a period of time, I have driven more carefully since the end of 2003 than at any other time in my life, and I have speed cameras to thank for that. I did not enjoy being caught, but it is an inevitable argument that even where speed cameras do not save lives—for example, the stretch of motorway where I was caught is not a particular accident blackspot—getting caught has led directly to a change in my behaviour. That outcome should be welcomed as a direct result of the proliferation of speed cameras in this country.
	There is a huge amount of media outrage, and it was suggested earlier that some Opposition Members are not as enthusiastic about the proliferation of speed cameras as some Labour Members. We see evidence of the Daily Mail Big Brother agenda every time new speed cameras go up. The George Orwell analogy is so over-used that I wonder whether any of the sub-editors have read "1984". I do not remember Winston Smith being clocked for doing 80 mph on the M6. "1984" was about slightly more important freedoms than the freedom to break the law and endanger other people's lives.
	I am not in favour of restrictions on individual freedoms. For example, I did not vote to support the 100 per cent. ban on smoking in public places, but there is no such thing as the right to break the law. That should not be tolerated by the House. If speed cameras can contribute to a change in the culture whereby speeding becomes unacceptable, in the same way as drink-driving has become unacceptable, speed cameras will be seen historically to have made a major contribution to the safety of our culture. It is often said by the anti-speed camera lobby that speed cameras turn ordinary law-abiding citizens into criminals. They do not. Law-abiding citizens turn themselves into criminals by choosing to break the law by speeding. That is an unpleasant message to give, but it is fact.
	I want to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister on part of clause 18, which outlaws speed assessment equipment detection devices. I know exactly the kind of devices to which that refers, but could there not be a wider interpretation of the word "device"? Last year the AA published its new road map of Britain, which included the precise location of every stationary speed camera in the country. Whatever the protestations of the AA, the only reason for publishing the exact location of every speed camera in the country was in order to warn its members, the purchasers of that map, when they may get caught speeding. In other words, it was a device enabling people to break the speed limit on long stretches of road, and then to slow down when they were approaching a speed camera, in order to avoid prosecution. I hope that the clause will outlaw such a measure.

Andrew Selous: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) has said, the debate has been consensual, and party politics should not divide us in this policy area.
	I will focus on one specific area in the hope that the Minister will see fit to table amendments to deal with a serious road safety problem brought to my attention by Bedfordshire police. At the moment, many drivers routinely commit large numbers of moving road traffic offences that principally involve speeding, but that also include dangerous driving such as jumping red lights. They get away with it because their vehicle details are incorrectly registered.
	That matter involves blatant discrimination. Law-abiding members of the public who correctly register their vehicles rightly pay the penalty of the law when speed cameras or police officers catch them, while people who incorrectly register their vehicles get away with driving extremely dangerously. In my constituency, for example, the A505, which runs from south of Leighton Buzzard to north of Dunstable has a 50 mph speed limit, but drivers have recently been recorded driving at speeds of up to 119 mph on that road. One driver did 82 mph in a built-up area in Dunstable, where there is a 30 mph speed limit, while another jumped a red light six seconds after the light had turned red. I can also show the Minister ample photographic evidence of drivers making rude gestures to speed cameras because they know that they cannot be touched as the law currently stands.
	Since I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 8 December, five people have been involved in fatal accidents and three people have been seriously injured in incidents in Bedfordshire involving cars with incorrectly registered details. The tragedy is that some cars have been caught doing outrageous speeds on many occasions—one vehicle has been clocked by speed cameras on 73 occasions and a motor bike has been caught 61 times. It is obvious that death and serious injury could be prevented if the police were able to act on the ample evidence provided by speed cameras.
	To give the Minister an idea of the scale of the problem, Bedfordshire police recorded 1,000 offences in December this year on which no action could be taken because it was impossible to trace the vehicles concerned. Those offences resulted in more than £30,000 of outstanding fines, many of which have lapsed under the six-month rule. The public expenditure implications are important, and I am sure that the Minister wants all fines to be collected.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned PACTS. After my Adjournment debate on 8 December, the director of PACTS, Robert Gifford, pointed out in a letter that
	"You are quite correct that this is a significant issue both for police resources and for road safety. As the Road Safety Bill will be returning to the House of Commons in the New Year, there may be an opportunity to raise these issues at Committee stage."
	I am happy to show the Minister that letter.
	I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from a letter written by the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, Gillian Parker. I want to place on the record my admiration for her in pursuing this issue. I am grateful to her and to her officers for all the work that they have put into trying to bring it to the Government's attention. Mrs. Parker writes as follows:
	"Most vehicles involved in these offences are registered with false details, or to a false or non-existent address. This makes the process of identifying the registered keeper and the driver virtually impossible.
	Even when these vehicles are stopped as a result of PNC markers placed upon them, the driver is able to provide identification and gives a plausible account as to who the registered keeper is. The evidence is usually insufficient to enable positive action to be taken and we are left no further forward in identifying the true offender in relation to the offences outstanding."
	She continues:
	"Advice has been sought from CPS and our local judiciary, there is agreement that to apply the Section 3 test to speeding offences, that is to suggest speeding per se also represents careless and inconsiderate driving, would be inappropriate and unlikely to succeed in court. As a result we are powerless to seize these vehicles under this legislation.
	When our offenders are stopped they usually hold driving licences and insurance, albeit registered to false addresses. Therefore, we cannot use the powers under The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005."
	When I spoke in the House on this subject on 8 December, I quoted similar stories from the police forces of Cambridgeshire, Essex, Greater Manchester— interestingly, the local police force of the Minister who responded—Suffolk and Thames Valley. Today, I can tell the House that I have additional information from the police forces of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Wiltshire and Warwickshire, which are facing the same problem. That is 12 police forces in total. That does not mean that the other 31 police forces are happy with the current law, but merely that we have not yet managed to get responses from them.
	Let me quote the comments of some of those other police forces in case the Minister or any other Member thinks that the problem is peculiar to Bedfordshire police, which it certainly is not. Nottinghamshire police says:
	"I agree with the Bedfordshire legal advisors and other Forces that this legislation—
	that is, section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002—
	"is not appropriate to deal with this type of offence and offender. S.59 relates specifically to vehicles being used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. Therefore, if we cannot show the alarm etc, we have lost the powers. Unlawful use does not necessarily involve problems caused directly to members of the public. This legislation was introduced to combat the problems caused by the 'boy racers', around towns and cities in particular. I am surprised that the Home Office even suggested this."
	Humberside police says:
	"I agree that the Police Reform Act Powers are insufficient in this respect. While all powers have to be proportionate, the ease with which the non-compliant can continue to evade justice is alarming and unfair for the rest of us."
	Derbyshire police says:
	"Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is not appropriate as it relates to confiscating vehicles which are causing alarm, distress or annoyance."
	Lastly, Wiltshire police says:
	"If we rigorously made every possible attempt to trace some of these registered keepers and nominated drivers I agree with your comments that we would be left with a paper trail with no realistic prospect of tracing/convicting the offender on many occasions."
	I apologise for quoting at length from different police forces but I hope that the quotes show the scale of the problem. Although hon. Members could be forgiven for believing that Bedfordshire police might not be fully competent—they are—I hope that the fact that 12 police forces have gone on record to say that the law is inadequate to tackle the problem will convince the Minister that we need to sit down together to examine the issue more seriously.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) tried to convince me during my Adjournment debate on 8 December that section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gave the police adequate powers. I asked the chief constable of Bedfordshire to raise that with the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers' road policing business area. I am sorry to say that all that has happened is that the relevant chief constable raised the matter with the Home Office, which gave the same advice as the Under-Secretary was given when he replied to the Adjournment debate on 8 December.
	The Under-Secretary also said that powers under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 could be used to deal with the problem. As I have already said when referring to the comments of the chief constable of Bedfordshire, the powers in the Bill to seize vehicles apply only if valid driving licences and insurance cannot be produced. In most of the Bedfordshire cases, that does not apply and drivers have been able to produce valid documents. That means that highly dangerous offences continue to be committed time and again, and the police can do nothing about it.
	I have raised the matter with Conservative Front Benchers and we are prepared to table amendments to deal with the problem. It would be regrettable if we had to do that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it would show the House of Commons at its worst if we divided on party political lines about the matter. Party politics should not come into it. It should be a case of sitting down together and ascertaining why the current law is unsatisfactory.
	In my Adjournment debate on 8 December, we had the absurd and almost comical position whereby the Under-Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box to tell me that the powers were adequate while, above him, in the Public Gallery, two serving officers from Bedfordshire police shook their heads as he spoke. It is incumbent on us all to listen to serving police officers who deal with the matter day in, day out and desperately want it to be resolved.
	Problems also exist with the requirements that we make of people when they register their vehicles. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the address of 25 Duke street in Chelmsford. There is no particular reason why he should be. However, it is well known not only to Essex police but to Bedfordshire police and, indeed, to many police forces in the eastern region because it is purely a drop-off postal address, at which many vehicles are registered. It is an address of convenience. When the police turn up there, they have no hope of apprehending the relevant driver. There are therefore problems with the registration of vehicles.
	I had the opportunity to speak to the Minister briefly before the debate and I shall listen carefully to his winding-up remarks. I genuinely believe that there is a misunderstanding on the part of some civil servants in the Home Office. I appreciate that Ministers must take advice and listen to their civil servants, but I hope that I have given enough evidence to show that the police need extra powers to seize vehicles, the owners of which have committed multiple offences of driving at outrageously dangerous speeds, and to tackle the problem. I greatly look forward to the Minister's response.

Mark Harper: When the Secretary of State opened the debate he pointed out that the national road safety figures were improving, which is welcome—but unfortunately, in my constituency they are doing anything but that. Last year there were 20 road fatalities—about four times the national average—and this year, sadly, there have already been four deaths. It is only March, yet we are already approaching the national yearly average, so it would be gratifying if the number did not increase at all this year.
	There is a mixture of reasons for those accidents. The coroner has not yet reported on many cases so we cannot talk about them, but in one accident involving young drivers the report has been made and the cause was drink-related excessive speed. My constituents were affected particularly by the prevalence of multiple fatalities, especially of younger drivers, and I shall discuss some of the remedies to prevent such accidents.
	One good thing that came out of those tragedies was the good response of the local community. Mike Webb and Jimmy Martin, driving instructors and members of the Forest and Wye Valley Driving Instructors Association, have put together, in their own time, an excellent presentation, which they have been taking to schools in the area, to get through to youngsters the importance of safe and careful driving, to try to save lives. They have been working with the fire and rescue service, the police and the county council's road safety team.
	I am pleased that the county council has targeted highway improvements in its budget plans for future years, to ensure that our roads are safer. Local authorities will be bidding for road safety grants from the Department for Transport and it is worth noting that there are some straightforward physical changes that can be made, especially in rural areas—for example, the proper installation of road drainage. In Gloucestershire county council's new contract, drainage will be a key performance indicator. It is important to make sure that there is no surface water on roads, as it appears to have been a factor in at least one of the casualties last year.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the number of accidents that do not involve another vehicle. In my rural constituency, a number of fatalities occur when people lose control of their vehicle and hit a sizeable roadside tree. The county council is looking into the idea of cutting back trees, which will have several benefits. It will improve visibility, reduce ice cover—because the road will not be in shade—allow boundary features and road signs to be more visible, and provide more space for horse riders to get off the road if necessary. Neither measure—proper road cleaning or control of vegetation—would cost much. When we consider the financial costs of a road fatality, quite apart from anything else, such investment is sensible.
	The Bill includes proposals for road safety grants, for which local authorities will bid and which the Department will award based on the road casualty figures and the quality of the local authority's casualty reduction plan. I welcome the proposal for the grants. My only plea to the Minister is that the application and assessment process should not be painful for local authorities, or require huge amounts of bureaucracy. Furthermore, given the variety of road safety performance and geographical area, as well as the nature of the road network, there should be significant local flexibility when assessing casualty reduction plans. After all, local people have a much better idea of what needs to be done to improve road safety in their area.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) touched on the statistics about young drivers, noting that young men account for only about 4 per cent. of the driving population, but for more than 30 per cent. of dangerous driving convictions. It is clear from the various meetings that we had following road accidents in my constituency, with young drivers in particular, that we need to do more than provide education and training in the theory and practice of driving. We should bear in mind the attitudes that young males bring to driving. For one thing, they think that they are invincible; unfortunately, when they discover that they are not it is often too late, and they, or others, pay the price. There are also societal factors. Young men are influenced by, for instance, magazines that emphasise the attractiveness of speed. We need to combat such influences.
	I am trying to persuade the emergency and education services in Gloucestershire to adopt a scheme that has been successful in Surrey, called Safe Drive Stay Alive. It was the idea of a Surrey firefighter, Rob Green, who was the victim of an accident caused by a speeding uninsured young driver. The Bill may help to prevent such accidents. The driver hit Rob Green and his wife when they were travelling on a motor cycle. Sadly, Mrs. Green was killed, and her husband lost both legs and suffered severe burns. When he returned to work, he developed the idea of a touring performance for young people approaching, and reaching, the legal driving age of 17. The first event was staged in Dorking. Groups of sixth-formers were bussed to a venue several times a day to see a production involving a filmed reconstruction of a genuine road accident in which a young person had been killed and others severely injured. The film used all the emergency services, and was shockingly realistic. I viewed it on a DVD with which I was supplied.
	Following the screening, the audience was addressed by the emergency service personnel who had been involved in the original accident: the firefighter who cut the passengers free, the paramedic who was first on the scene, the doctor who pronounced the young person dead, the policeman who had to visit her parents, and the victim of another road accident who had ended up confined to a wheelchair. Apparently the effect on the audience was profound. Subsequent research confirmed that the event had changed the young people's attitudes to driving, and made a noticeable difference to the way in which they conducted themselves.
	As I have said, I am encouraging the relevant authorities in Gloucestershire to adopt that idea. I should like the Minister to think about it as well. If such programmes are bid for as part of the road safety grant arrangements, he may consider it appropriate to fund them.

Si�n James: Like many Members present today, I have several high-profile cases in my constituency involving young people who lost their lives. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I cannot let it pass. In the past year, three young peopleLesley-Ann Morgan, her fianc and a friendlost their lives in a very serious crash in my constituency when returning from a happy family evening. The wedding of Lesley-Ann and her fianc had been soon to take place; now they are buried next to each other. Although their families have received a lot of support, they remain greatly concerned about the sentence handed out. The two young men in question, who were racing at speeds in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, could have been sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment. We should never think that the families' feelings should not take precedence.

Mark Harper: I take that point, and it is clear that in such cases the right offence for someone to be charged with is dangerous driving, which addresses the question of intent. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned similar cases in his constituency, and his complaint seemed primarily to be about the sentences that the courts had chosen to impose. I do not know the details of those cases, but if the complaint is the sentences being chosen, giving the courts more options will not solve the problem, bearing in mind the fact that they are not taking up the options that they already have. The Crown Prosecution Service could perhaps do with some guidance in that regard.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill will allow an alternative verdict to that of manslaughter in cases where such a charge is brought; that is a sensible move. We should encourage the prosecuting authorities not simply to go for the easiest charge, for which they know they will secure a conviction. If they genuinely think that the circumstances merit the higher charge of causing death by dangerous driving, they should prosecute on that, rather than going for the easier charge. That would go a long way towards dealing with the admittedly tragic cases in which the CPS should have brought a charge of dangerous driving, but chose a different charge.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also touched on enforcement. Unless there are sufficient traffic policemen to enforce offences, there is little point in having them. Speeding is a case in point. The cause of accidents in rural constituencies such as mine is often not speeding per se, but driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, even if people are driving well within the speed limit, if they are approaching a bend, or there is poor visibility or dangerous weather conditions, they could still be driving inappropriately fast for the conditions. We can deal with that problem only if sufficient traffic officers are available to catch such people and advise them, or to take other action. Regardless of how many speed cameras there are, they are suitable only for catching people exceeding the speed limit. In many cases, driving at the speed limit is very dangerous, and we need to catch such people. That is not going to happen unless we have sufficient enforcement.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned making first aid training part of the driving test. The other aspect of an early response to accidents is ambulance response times, which will never be as quick in rural areas as they are in urban areas, even when the system is working well. We have had some very slow ambulance response times, which I have taken up with the Minister's colleagues. An initial speedy response is important, and it is worth considering how we could build first aid training into the driving test. We could also consider how we could encourage all drivers to be more skilled in that area, without making it compulsory.
	I, too, have found from observing the reaction of drivers as they are triggered, that vehicle-activated warning signs have been effective. The signs appear to have the desired effect, and could be made more flexible. For example, my right hon. Friend suggested that the limits could be variable on busy roads and according to the weather conditions. Such signs are often better than speed cameras, and I commend them to the Minister.
	I welcome the Bill, although it can be improved. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have madeI am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will do soand make improvements to make it an even better Bill.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me have the opportunity to put on record the position of the Liberal Democrats on death by careless driving. I hope he agrees that it should be possible in Committee to provide sufficient clarity for those of us who are not opposed in principle to the offence so that we can support the Government's position.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who spoke on the very subject that I want to talk about. After five hours of debate, I am glad that we have returned to that important issue. I also very much welcome the agreement between Front-Bench spokesman to move forward so that we find the right law to deal with the problem. The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Bill, but it needs improvement.
	I want to talk specifically about what has become known in my constituency as Alexine's law. Alexine's parents and family have taken a close interest in today's proceedings. There is a huge gap in the law between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving. Let me spell it out: as the law stands, if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the maximum punishment is a 2,500 fine and discretionary disqualification; the maximum punishment on conviction of causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine and mandatory disqualification.
	One problem with the current law is that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are likely to accept a plea of guilty for the offence of careless driving to be sure of a convictionthe very point that the hon. Gentleman made. In many of those cases, they should push for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. However, that means that more evidence has to be gathered and more work done, and there is a chance that the defendant will be found not guilty. That is why we absolutely need something in between. It is not acceptable for someone to take another's life, even if unintentionally, then plead guilty to careless driving in the knowledge that they will escape with just a fine. Off the record, the police say that the best way to murder someone is with a car, as the penalties are not very high, even if the perpetrator is caught. Such a statement may appear ludicrous in the light of the picture that I have painted but, sadly, it is the truth. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for the help that she has provided on the issue of causing death by dangerous driving. She has provided me with informative advice through letters and meetings, and I am grateful. I pay tribute, too, to Brigitte Chaudhry of RoadPeace who, with her colleagues, has worked hard to highlight the gap in the law.
	As secretary of the associate parliamentary group for justice for road traffic victims I have met and listened to the victims' families. I have been told of extremely sad and tragic cases in which young people have been killed, yet their killers have escaped with just a small fine because it is easier for the courts to prosecute someone who pleads guilty to careless driving than find the evidence to prosecute someone for causing death by dangerous driving. There are obvious budgetary pressures on the Crown Prosecution Service as well.
	I became aware of the huge gap between careless driving and the offence of causing death by dangerous driving when my predecessor, together with our excellent local newspaper, The Evening Telegraph, campaigned for a new law and a new offence of causing death by careless driving. On 7 June 2004, 17-year-old Alexine Melnik was tragically killed in a road traffic accident. Alexine, whose parents live in Rushden in my constituency, had her whole life to look forward to, but it was cut short. The person driving the car that caused the crash pleaded guilty to careless driving. He was given a 500 fine and he kept his licence; 17-year-old Alexine lost her life. Alexine was returning from Great Yarmouth as a passenger in a car travelling on an A road on a hot, sunny afternoon. Her car was hit from behindboth cars were travelling at a speed of about 50 mphand was knocked into the oncoming traffic. She lost her life, but the driver who caused the crash could not remember what had happened. He had been up since 4.30 am, and many people would conclude that he had fallen asleep at the wheel. There is clearly a case for stronger prosecution in such cases. It is not acceptable for lawyers in the House to say that there are sufficient laws in place, as those laws are not used. There is a gap, and we need to fill it.
	Alexine's family has been campaigning since her death for a change in the law so that a new offence of causing death by careless driving that attracts a custodial sentence can be introduced. As I said, the campaign is known locally as Alexine's law in remembrance of Alexine Melnik. If that law is introduced, although it will not bring her back, it will certainly mean that she did not die in vain. Mr. and Mrs. Peter Melnik and their family have campaigned tirelessly to raise the issue, and last March Mr. Melnik gave evidence when the previous Road Safety Bill was in Committee. The dedicated campaigning of the Melnik family and other families across the country who have been sadly affected by the gap in the law has made a genuine difference. It is their hard work, borne out of the tragedies that they have suffered, that has highlighted the issue to the Government and to Parliament. No one who heard Mr. Melnik's evidence could fail to be impressed by his integrity and determination to seek justice for families who have lost loved ones as a result of other people's bad driving. One can only marvel at the courage that Mr. Melnik and his family have shown.
	As a result of lobbying by road safety groups and affected families, the Home Office carried out a consultation exercise entitled Review of Road Traffic Offences Involving Bad Driving. I believe that it is right that the views of the public are sought before elected representatives make decisions. In fact, I have been running a campaign called Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden since 2001. I felt that politicians of all parties had become a little arrogant and out of touch, and that they were happier to preach to people than to listen to them.
	My campaign seeks the views of local people, groups and organisations, and then campaigns for change on their behalf. As part of the campaign, I contacted many people to make them aware of the Home Office's consultation, and urged them to submit responses in favour of the creation of a new offence of causing death by careless driving.
	The response was huge, with people from all political parties supporting a change in the law. In my response to the consultation, I stated that I felt it was imperative that the new offence of causing death by careless driving needed to be created. I also said that people so convicted should face heftier punishment, which should include a prison sentence.
	There are two reasons for that, and the first is that a tougher penalty will act as a deterrent. As Mr. Melnick said:
	We have a duty of care to others when we take to the wheel of a care. We cannot wash our hands of that responsibility when things go wrong and the outcome doesn't suit. If we are put through the pain and anguish of a proper and intensive investigation in order to establish . . . an understanding of what happened, I contend most people would consider it to be a minor inconvenience when compared to the trauma and finality of death.
	We are a civilised society and one of the cornerstones of it is the value and respect for human life. Just because we drive a car doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to uphold that value.
	Secondly, the new penalty will give the victim's family a sense of justice. Although a life cannot be brought back, a small fine imposed by the courts is no justice for a family who have lost a love one because of bad driving. I was pleased when the Minister of State intervened earlier to make it clear that, with this Bill, we are talking about bad driving, not about people who suffer a lapse of concentration or who swerve to avoid a deer in the road. They will not be prosecuted, but at the moment those who drive badly get away almost scot-free.
	I have raised this issue on many occasions in Parliament. In my maiden speech, I stated that I would do all in my power to bridge the existing gap in the law. I have addressed two oral questions to the Prime Minister, and several written questions to the Home Secretary. I was very pleased that, as a result of the Home Office consultation and the pressure brought to bear by MPs and the public, including Mr. Melnik, the Government introduced a new offence of causing death by careless driving in the Road Safety Bill.
	The provisions of the new law would have given the courts the option of handing down a custodial sentence of up to five years for someone found guilty of causing death by careless driving. That was a major step forward in closing the gap between the offences and the punishments of careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving.
	There is well documented opposition to the heftier punishments associated with the new offence. Members of the legal profession have concerns about a custodial sentence because of the issue of intent. There are also concerns that a custodial sentence could be given when a person has committed an unintentional act rather than a deliberate one. Some people say that no one gets into a car with the intention of killing someone, but I believe that the courts should be allowed to decide whether to dole out the maximum penalty on conviction.
	It may be that, in most cases, a prison sentence of five years is not appropriate, but we need to give the courts the option of deciding whether it is. They need the widest discretion, after hearing all the facts and evidence. We are always hearing from the judiciary that the Government dictate what they can and cannot do, but this Bill gives us an opportunity to give the courts the option of different punishments.
	When the House of Lords considered the Bill, it voted against a custodial sentence being handed out in a magistrates court, but the vote was very close. It was still in favour of the option of a custodial sentence if someone was convicted in a Crown court. I reiterate my belief that we should give both courts the option of different punishments. That includes a custodial sentence to be handed out on conviction. I urge the Government to adopt the right course of action and reverse the decision made in the House of Lords. I believe that the Secretary of State gave that assurance earlier.
	I would like the new offence of causing death by careless driving and the maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment to be part of the Bill. My main fear is that, if the Bill is left as it stands, people will plead guilty to careless driving in the hope that their case will be heard in a magistrates court, where there is no chance that they will receive a custodial sentence. That would still result in a weakening of the law because defendants would know that if they pleaded guilty to careless driving, they could get off with a punishment that was much less severe than the one that they deserved. Given the tragic and sad stories that I have heard as secretary of the all-party group on road traffic victims, that is just not acceptable. I urge the House to give the courtsboth Crown and magistratesthe opportunity to impose a custodial sentence following a conviction for careless driving when a death has occurred.
	I congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns of victims of road accidents and the House of Lords on introducing the new offence of causing death by careless driving. The new law needs to be considered in detail in Committee. It is very encouraging that Parliament is working as it should. Both sides have concerns, but want to move things forward. I hope that Alexine's law passes on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who has campaigned on road safety since he came to Parliament, following the example of his predecessor. I will turn to his points a little later.
	We should remember that, in 2004, 3,221 people were killed on the roadsjust under nine a dayand there were 280,840 casualties. If that number of people were killed on our railways, aeroplanes or ferries, there would be a national outcry and the issue would take over the press for weeks. If that number of people were killed in Iraq, there would be a similar response. However, that carnage takes places on our streets, outside our homes and in our country lanes and, for some strange reason, there does not seem to be a sense of national anger. The debate has been constructive and this is an instance of when politicians must take a lead and make tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions in the interests of the whole community.
	The Opposition welcome much of the Bill as a genuine attempt to reduce the slaughter on the roads and will take a constructive and, we hope, helpful stance in Committee. Although we extend that broad welcome to the Bill, we feel that it could be improved and will aim to achieve that wherever possible. It could be more imaginative and, in places, tougher. In seeking to achieve that aim, we hold it as profoundly essential that the number of tragedies on the road is reduced. We have heard numerous cases from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Tragedy is an apt word, because behind the crude statistics, human beings are dying, often in horrendous circumstances. That should be no one's fate and we should wish it on no oneand no driver wishes it on anyone.
	There was a terrible story last Christmas involving the death of a 16-year-old girl who was thrown from a car that was being driven by her brother when it collided with another vehicle in Oxfordshire. One cannot begin to imagine the grief of the parents who have to live with that every day. In February, three people from one family died after their car came off the road and plunged into a nearby river. Last December, just a mile from that scene, a father and a seven-year-old also died. The local constable Mick McCready said:
	When you have just dragged three people out of a river, you want to find a way of stopping road accidents.
	That is what we have been trying to discuss constructively this afternoon.
	The problem involves huge numbers of people. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions that I have tabled. In 2004, there were 34.27 million substantive licence holders driving 25.75 million cars, 2.9 million vans and 434,000 lorries between them. It is pertinent to some of the clauses of which we strongly approve that the number of foreign-registered vehicles leaving the UK has rocketed from 671,000 in 1997 to 1,595,000 in 2004.
	We welcome measures in the Bill that bear down on serial offenders and some hard core offenders on matters such as driving uninsured vehicles. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his powerful and clearly argued speech on a problem of which I was unaware. I hope that in Committee we and the Minister can agree on amendments that would resolve such an extraordinary problem and that would have the support of a number of police forces.
	As the answers to the parliamentary questions showed, the sheer number of drivers and vehicles requires drivers' co-operation and collaboration with the authorities in order to improve road safety. With such large numbers, coercion will not work. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) who, in a long and detailed speech, argued that we need flexibility. We wholeheartedly approve of the proposals for flexibility on points, for example.
	However, there are profound differences in the way in which we believe road safety should be approached in order to achieve our common objective. In some ways, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. In some respects it does not go far enough, and it fails to take a holistic view of the problem. There should be a change of attitude in the way that we deal with road safety. To achieve the aim of reduced casualties requires a partnership not just between the enforcement agencies and road safety professionals, but with all road users, especially drivers. Road safety should not be an us and them problem, with one group aspiring to impose duties and obligations on another. It should be a shared enterprise.
	That is where parts of the Bill are wrong. It follows a long line of legislation adding to the number of controls imposed on drivers and adding to the penalties. In this context, the vexed question of speed cameras arises. Ten years ago there were 200,000 speeding fines. That number increased to 2 million last year, bringing in more than 114 million. All those revenues should be spent on road safety improvements. Whatever our opinions on the use of speed cameras, they have caused ill-will outside the House and are widely perceived as revenue-raising devices, not road safety devices. By resorting to a combination of draconian law and indiscriminate enforcement, there is a risk that we are losing the hearts and minds of drivers, when we need their co-operation to help improve road safety.
	I have seen reports that 1 million drivers have six or more points on their licence. It was very honest of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) to admit that he was one of them. Those drivers are, on the whole, law-abiding hard-working people trying to go about their daily business, who have been caught. I should declare that my wife gave me a GPS device which tells me where cameras are. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am in the happy position of not having any pointstouch wood. I believe that the device has made me drive better. Can the Minister clarify that devices that show where cameras are positioned will continue to be allowed?

Stephen Ladyman: No, I cannot promise that. I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about heritage Morris Minors, but equally that the appropriate example from his constituents' point of view was a Bentley.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned alcohol levels. He is a long-term campaigner on road safety and he made a powerful case, but I am not persuaded that the time is right for a 50 mg limit, because we are not yet enforcing the 80 mg limit properly. The police need to be able to target their fire on serious offenders at the 80 mg limit. Once the enforcement rate is high at that level, there may be an argument for a future Government to reduce the limit to 50 mg, but that time has not yet arrived.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke about young drivers. I am looking into the matter and just this week held a meeting with the Driving Standards Agency to discuss our programme. A few years ago, we consulted widely about young driverswhether we wanted provisional licensing, or P platesand the feeling was very much that that was not the way to go. In this country, our strategy has always been that a person should be a fully competent driver to pass the test and obtain their licence. Staged or progressive licensing is not appropriate. Before someone goes on the road, they should be a competent driver and pass the test.
	The pass plus programme is a slightly different issue and we need to consider how to incentivise people to participate. We are talking to insurance companies, but even if they gave discounts I am not sure how much that would help, as many young people go on the road for the first time on mum and dad's insurancethe kid will not have an incentive to do pass plus unless they are paying for their insurance from their own pocket. A broader campaign of education, targeting resources on younger drivers, looking into training for younger drivers and working with approved driving instructors to provide young drivers with the necessary experience might be more fruitful lines to explore, and I am talking to the DSA about those ideas.
	Members raised a number of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned road humps. However, I have to say that if somebody drives so fast over a road hump that they are injured, I have not the slightest bit of sympathy for them. The road hump would be doing its job by slowing them down. Road humps are always installed in consultation with the emergency services and various designs are available to meet different needs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) spoke about sleep disorders such as tiredness and sleep apnoea. One aspect of being moved from Department to Department is that Ministers' crimes tend to follow them around. When I was a health Minister, my hon. Friend's predecessor initiated a debate on sleep apnoea to which I responded, so I am well aware of the issue. Primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that services are available for the care of people with sleep disorders. We have launched a prominent campaign, advising all drivers to take at least 10 to 15 minutes' rest every two hours. Only last week I made a pitch to an informal council of transport Ministers in Austria, suggesting that we launch a trans-European campaign on driver tiredness. I think that that would be an appropriate campaign for Europe to focus on.
	Both the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South mentioned speed cameras. My hon. Friend wants the cameras to be hiddenpainted blackwhile the hon. Gentleman wants a better partnership with the motorist.
	As I told my hon. Friend earlier, the road camera programme is aimed at areas where there is overt enforcement. We want people to know that there is enforcement in those areas, because we want them to control their behaviour at known blackspots. In addition, the police retain all the powers that they have always had to carry out covert enforcement. We encourage them to use those powers. We certainly do not want to legalise devices that would let people know where the police are covertly enforcing speed limits. We do not want radar detectors to be legalised, for example.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS ANDMEANS]